Exhibit 5 - Planning and Housing Commission Staff Report for SP2025-0001.pdf — Corona City Council, July 1, 2026 (part 9 of 10)

Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
x x X
CEQA process (public
noticing), general
opposition to project
29 Courtney Kasey
[email protected] x x X General opposition to project City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-7
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
LETTER
NO. COMMENTER PROJECT

DESCRIPTION

AESTHETICS AND
VIEWS

AIR QUALITYBIOLOGICAL
RESOURCESa

CULTURAL

RESOURCES

GEOLOGY AND SOILSGREENHOUSE
GAS

EMISSIONS

HAZARDS AND

HAZARDOUS
MAT

HYDROLOGY AND
WATER

QUALITY

LAND USE AND

PLANNING

NOISEPOPULATION, HOUSING,EMPLOYMENTPUBLIC SERVICES (INCLUDING PARKS AND RECREATION)b
TRANSPORTATIONcUTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMSAGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCESALTERNATIVESOTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONSOTHER COMMENTS

EXPLANATION OF OTHER
30 Khoa Vu x x X General opposition to
project
31 Christy Parker
Emotional Ethics
[email protected]
[email protected]
x
32 K. Zimmerman x x
33 Carol Lazar
1763 Gleason
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
X Open space
34 [email protected] X Open space
35 Kate Panepinto
[email protected] X General opposition to project
36 Jorge Loutzenhiser
Quality Assurance/IT Dept.

MillworkX Precision Machining,
Inc.
[email protected]
x x x X
37 Khris Gaines
[email protected] x x X General opposition to project
38 Eric Budinko
[email protected] x x X General opposition to project
39 Stephanie Lomani
[email protected] x x x X General opposition to project 40 Imdad Yusufaly
[email protected] x x X General opposition to project City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-8

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
LETTER
NO. COMMENTER PROJECT

DESCRIPTION

AESTHETICS AND
VIEWS

AIR QUALITYBIOLOGICAL
RESOURCESa

CULTURAL

RESOURCES

GEOLOGY AND SOILSGREENHOUSE
GAS

EMISSIONS

HAZARDS AND

HAZARDOUS
MAT

HYDROLOGY AND
WATER

QUALITY

LAND USE AND

PLANNING

EXPLANATION OF OTHER
41 Craig Johnson
1400 W. Chase Drive
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
x x X X Maintenance of facilities
42 Khoa Vu x x X General opposition to
project
43 Erika Hernandez
[email protected] x x X General opposition to project 44 Michelle Phillips
[email protected] x x X General opposition to project 45 Patricia (Realo) Anderson
[email protected] x x x x x X X CEQA process (public noticing) 46 David (James) Armenta
[email protected] x x X
General opposition to
project
47 Brendan McGeown
[email protected] x x X
48 Laura Brennan-Mayhugh
[email protected] x x x X
49 Aaron Cox
[email protected] x x x X
50 Wendie Stevens-Rodriguez
[email protected] x x X General opposition to project 51 Nicole Krenzin
2627 Falcon Circule
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
x x x x x X
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-9
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
LETTER
NO. COMMENTER PROJECT

DESCRIPTION

AESTHETICS AND
VIEWS

AIR QUALITYBIOLOGICAL
RESOURCESa

CULTURAL

RESOURCES

GEOLOGY AND SOILSGREENHOUSE
GAS

EMISSIONS

HAZARDS AND

HAZARDOUS
MAT

HYDROLOGY AND
WATER

QUALITY

LAND USE AND

PLANNING

EXPLANATION OF OTHER
52 Nicole Krenzin
2627 Falcon Circule
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
x x X General opposition to
project
53 Ann and Donald Long
1460 W. Chase Drive
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
x x x x X Property values
54 Rachel DosSantos
[email protected] x
55 Jennifer Daughaday
[email protected] x
56 Sean Soto
[email protected] x
57 Elsa Yoshida
[email protected] x x X X General opposition to project, open space 58 Malinda Vance
[email protected] x x x
59 Sylvia Sparks
[email protected] x
60 Brittney Pecore
[email protected] x x X General opposition to project
61 Lolly Janoski
[email protected] x x x x X
62 Elaine Harris
[email protected] x x x X Open space
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-10

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
LETTER
NO. COMMENTER PROJECT

DESCRIPTION

AESTHETICS AND
VIEWS

AIR QUALITYBIOLOGICAL
RESOURCESa

CULTURAL

RESOURCES

GEOLOGY AND SOILSGREENHOUSE
GAS

EMISSIONS

HAZARDS AND

HAZARDOUS
MAT

HYDROLOGY AND
WATER

QUALITY

LAND USE AND

PLANNING

EXPLANATION OF OTHER
63 Linda Terry
Corona, CA 92879
[email protected]
x x
64 Ann and Donald Long
1460 W. Chase Drive
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
x x x x X Property values
65 Dwight Woodward
2272 Adrienne Drive x x x
66 David (James) Armenta
Corona, CA
[email protected]
x x X General opposition to
project
67 Courtney Kasey
[email protected] x x x x X X X X CEQA process (public noticing), fiscal 68 Courtney Kasey
[email protected] x x x x X X X X CEQA process (public noticing), fiscal 69 Courtney Kasey
[email protected] x x x x X X X CEQA process, cumulative, fiscal 70 Courtney Kasey
[email protected] x x x x x x X X X
Mitigation, open space,
general opposition to
project
71 Courtney Kasey
[email protected] x x x x x x X X X
Mitigation, open space,
general opposition to
project
72 Carlos Quintero
[email protected] x x X Open space
73 James Brooks
[email protected] x x x X General opposition to project, open space City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-11
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
LETTER
NO. COMMENTER PROJECT

DESCRIPTION

AESTHETICS AND
VIEWS

AIR QUALITYBIOLOGICAL
RESOURCESa

CULTURAL

RESOURCES

GEOLOGY AND SOILSGREENHOUSE
GAS

EMISSIONS

HAZARDS AND

HAZARDOUS
MAT

HYDROLOGY AND
WATER

QUALITY

LAND USE AND

PLANNING

EXPLANATION OF OTHER
74 Elaine Harris
[email protected] x x x X Open space
75 Didier Trevizo
Trevizo Chiropractic
Corona, CA
[email protected]
x x x General opposition to
project, open space
76 Tariq Shamma
TMS Consortium
807 E. Chase Drive
Corona, CA 92881
x x x x
77 Wilson Tsing
[email protected] x x x x X X
General opposition to
project, CEQA process
(public noticing)
78 Roger Conard
Conard Photo
[email protected]
x x x x X General opposition to
project
79 Stephanie Morales
[email protected] x x x x X General opposition to project, open space 80 Lydia Castillo
[email protected] x X Open space
81 Wes Bemis
898 Big Spring Court
Corona, CA 92880
[email protected]
x x X Open space
82 Eveline Zadeh
[email protected] x x X General opposition to project 83 Wes Bemis
[email protected] x
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-12

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
LETTER
NO. COMMENTER PROJECT

DESCRIPTION

AESTHETICS AND
VIEWS

AIR QUALITYBIOLOGICAL
RESOURCESa

CULTURAL

RESOURCES

GEOLOGY AND SOILSGREENHOUSE
GAS

EMISSIONS

HAZARDS AND

HAZARDOUS
MAT

HYDROLOGY AND
WATER

QUALITY

LAND USE AND

PLANNING

EXPLANATION OF OTHER
a Biological resources include, but are not limited to, sensitive plant and animal species, sensitive habitat (riparian, wetlands) wetland, streambed alteration, and watersheds. b Public services include fire protection and emergency medical services, police protection and law enforcement services, parks and recreational services, schools, and library services. c Transportation includes traffic, parking, circulation, (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle), and safety.

Source: ESA PCR, January 2017.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-13
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Table 2-2
Summary of Comments on the Skyline Heights Project RDEIR

LETTER
NO.

COMMENTER PROJECT

DESCRIPTIO
N

AESTHETICS AND
VIEWS

AIR QUALITYBIOLOGICAL
RESOURCESa

CULTURAL

RESOURCES

GEOLOGY AND SOILSGREENHOUSE
GAS

EMISSIONS

HAZARDS AND

HAZARDOUS
MAT

HYDROLOGY AND
WATER

QUALITY

LAND USE AND

PLANNING

EXPLANATION OF OTHER

PUBLIC AGENCIES
84 State of California
Natural Resources Agency
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Inland Deserts Region
Leslie MacNair, Regional Manager
3602 Inland Empire Boulevard
Suite C-220
Ontario, CA 91764
x x
85 State of California
Department of Transportation
District 8
Mark Roberts, Office Chief
Intergovernmental Review,
Community and Regional Planning
MS 722
464 West 4th Street, 6th Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400
x
86 Riverside County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District
Edwin Quinonez
Engineering Project Manager
1995 Market Street
Riverside, CA 92501
x x x

ORGANIZATIONS
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-14

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
LETTER
NO.

COMMENTER PROJECT

DESCRIPTIO
N

AESTHETICS AND
VIEWS

AIR QUALITYBIOLOGICAL
RESOURCESa

CULTURAL

RESOURCES

GEOLOGY AND SOILSGREENHOUSE
GAS

EMISSIONS

HAZARDS AND

HAZARDOUS
MAT

HYDROLOGY AND
WATER

QUALITY

LAND USE AND

PLANNING

EXPLANATION OF OTHER
87 Pechanga Tribal Historic
Preservation Office
Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission
Indians
Anna Hoover, Deputy THPO,
Cultural Analyst
Post Office. Box 2183 • Temecula,
CA 92593
x

INDIVIDUALS
88 Joyce Malle
[email protected] x X
89 Patrick Aggabao
[email protected] x
a Biological resources include, but are not limited to, sensitive plant and animal species, sensitive habitat (riparian, wetlands) wetland, streambed alteration, and watersheds. b Public services include fire protection and emergency medical services, police protection and law enforcement services, parks and recreational services, schools, and library services. c Transportation includes traffic, parking, circulation, (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle), and safety.

Source: ESA PCR, January 2017.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-15
1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 6:23 PM
To: David Crook; Mike Byer ([email protected]) Subject: FW: Skyline Heights DEIR Comments - Forest Service Attachments: Corona SKYLINE DEIR comments CNF 050216.pdf Importance: High
From: Vance, Darrell W -FS [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 12:57 PM
To: Terri Manuel
Cc: Heys, Jeffrey A -FS; Rodriguez, Jacob F -FS
Subject: Skyline Heights DEIR Comments - Forest Service Importance: High
Good Afternoon Ms. Manuel,
Please find attached our written comments regarding the Skyline Heights DEIR. Feel free to contact us with any comments or questions.

Thank You, and have a great day!
D
Darrell Vance
District Ranger
Forest Service
Cleveland National Forest
Trabuco Ranger District
p: 951-736-1811 x3236
[email protected]
1147 E. 6th St.

Corona, CA 92879-1616
www.fs.fed.us
Caring for the land and serving people
This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email immediately.

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 1
United States Forest Service
Cleveland National Forest
Trabuco Ranger District
Darrel Vance, District Manager
1147 E 6th Street
Corona, CA 92879-1616
Response to Letter 1
Response to Comment 1-1. This comment provides a general introduction regarding the comments raised in this letter. Responses to the comments contained in this letter are provided below in Responses to Comments 1-2 through 1-10 below.

Response to Comment 1-2. This comment expressing thanks for the opportunity to comment, and commending the detail provided in the analysis which eliminated many of the Forest Services’ concerns regarding development in close proximity to the Cleveland National Forest (CNF), is noted and will be provided to the decision makers for their consideration. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 1-3.

Consistency with CNF LMP
The Draft EIR addressed the location of the project site in multiple chapters and sections, including but not limited to Chapter 1.0, Introduction, Chapter 2.0, Project Description, and Section 4.I, Land Use and Planning, and evaluates the consistency of the project with applicable regulations in multiple sections, including the consistency of the project will applicable land use plans in Section 4.I. While the Draft EIR correctly indicates that the CNF lies to the west and south of the project site (for example, on pages ES-4, 1-5, 2-2, 2-5, 2-11 and

4.I-2), it is acknowledged that the Draft EIR does not make clear that the project site is located entirely within the boundaries of the CNF as indicated in the comment. In response, the Draft EIR has been revised to: (1) indicate that the project site is located entirely within the boundaries of the CNF; and (2) include the requested consistency analysis with the CNF’s 2005 Land Management Plan (LMP). These corrections and additions have been incorporated into Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR, in this Final EIR. As indicated in the added consistency analysis, the project would be generally consistent with applicable land use goals and requirements of the LMP, and thus project land use impacts regarding consistency with the LMP would be less than significant.

Development at the Urban-Rural Interface
With regards to the comment that the increase in population density under the project would accelerate certain ongoing challenges that the LMP directs the Forest Service to remedy, while the project site is located within the CNF, the portion of the site proposed for development: (1) is private land within Riverside County’s land use jurisdiction and the City of Corona’s Sphere of Influence (SOI); (2) both the County and the City currently designate the proposed development portion of the site for rural residential development; (3) City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-21

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
as indicated on page 37 of the LMP, the Elsinore portion of the CNF in which the project site is located is at the urban-rural interface; and (4) LMP’s Land-Use Zones map identifies the proposed development portion of the site as “Non-Forest System Land” rather than “Forest Land” and does not identify the site as being within one of the designated Land-Use Zone in which the LMP regulates land uses. Furthermore, the project would not include the construction of urban support systems (e.g., roads, utility lines, etc.) on public land or on private land not already designated for urban development, and would not block existing vehicular and trail access to the CNF. Finally, as indicated under the “Consistency with CNF LMP” discussion above, the project would be generally consistent with the applicable land use goals and requirements of the LMP.

Therefore, the project would not substantially accelerate certain ongoing challenges that the LMP directs the Forest Service to remedy related to population density. Please see the LMP consistency analysis in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR, and Response to Comments 1-5 and 1-6 below, for further discussion.

Response to Comment 1-4.

Development in Proximity to the CNF
With regard to the general issues of development in close proximity to NFS lands and increasing population density within/adjacent to the CNF, please see Response to Comment 1-3 above. As indicated therein, the proposed development portion of the project site is already designated for urban development, the project would not include development on public land or the extension of roads or infrastructure on public lands, and the project would not block existing vehicular and trail access to the CNF. Furthermore, as indicated on page 4.I-15 of the Draft EIR, while project residents would likely utility the existing trails in the area, this increase in trail use is expected to be nominal relative to the existing trail usage and would not result in substantial degradation of the trails
Water Extraction
With regard to water extraction, this issue is addressed in Section 4.H, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR. As indicated on page 4.H-27 of the Draft EIR, the project would not involve any groundwater extraction or other activities that could result in direct withdrawal or depletion of groundwater supplies. As further indicated, while the project would obtain its water from the City of Corona’s municipal water system, which relies in part on water supplies from local aquifers, the project would not result in any adverse impacts to the City’s water supplies, including groundwater resources. Therefore, the project would not significantly impact groundwater levels or supply within the CNF.

Habitat/Habitat Fragmentation
With regard to loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation, these issues are addressed in Section 4.C, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. As indicated on pages 4.C-23 through 4.C-30 and page 4.C-50 of the Draft EIR, and on pages 4.C-49 through 4.C-50 of the RDEIR, the project would result in less than significant impacts to sensitive species habitat, riparian habitat and wetlands, and less than significant habitat fragmentation impacts, with the proposed provision of approximately 36 percent of the annexation area as permanent open space (including most of Maybey Canyon and the drainages), adherence to applicable regulations, and implementation of the Project Design Features and mitigation measures identified in the section. Please see Response to Comment 1-7 below for further discussion.

Land Use and Open Space
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-22
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
With regard to loss of open space, this issue is addressed in Section 4.I, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR. As indicated on page 4.I-15 through 4.I-25, the project would be consistent with the: (1) open space factors (e.g., requirements) for annexation set forth in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000; (2) objectives to focus growth in existing and emerging centers and along major transportation corridors, and to preserve existing open space, as set forth in the Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and other SCAG regional plans; and (3) open space goals, policies and requirements of the City of Corona General Plan.

As indicated on pages 4.I-15 through 4.I-25, the above conclusions were reached, in part, because: the project site is located immediately adjacent to existing development and a major arterial, within an urban service area designated by LAFCO, within the City of Corona’s sphere of influence (SOI), and within an area designated by both the County and the City for urban development; approximately 36 percent of the greater annexation area would be retained as agricultural and permanent open space land; the project would largely preserve Mabey Canon and other surrounding open space features, and conserve habitat in drainages; the project would preserve vehicular and trail access to the CNF; and the project would provide open space features within the proposed subdivision that provide for recreation and natural resource value. As indicated on page 4.I-26 of the Draft EIR, with approval of the proposed General Plan Map Amendment, Zoning Map and Text Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, and project design features identified in the Draft EIR, the project would not conflict with relevant land use plans, policies and regulations, and thus impacts related to land use and planning (including impacts to open space) would be less than significant. Please see the CNF LMP consistency analysis in Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR, of this Final EIR, for analysis of project consistency with applicable CNF LMP open space goals, policies and requirements. As indicated therein, the project would be consistent with applicable CNF LMP open space goals, policies and objectives.

Scenic Integrity
With regard to loss of scenic integrity, this issue is addressed in Section 4.A, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR. As indicated on pages 4.A-15 and 4.A-4.A-26 of the Draft EIR, given the substantial landform alteration of the project site required to implement the proposed projects, impacts related to views/scenic vistas, visual resources, and visual character would be significant and unavoidable, and no mitigation measures are available to reduce the significance of these impacts. Still, as indicated on page 4.A-26, all feasible mitigation measures, including clustering and compliance with state and local development codes, have been incorporated into the project. In addition, the project would preserve approximately 36% of the proposed annexation area in agricultural and permanent open space use. Finally, the project would represent lowdensity residential development with landscape and open space amenities which would soften the aesthetic impacts of the project. Please see Response to Comment 1-9 below under “Visual Sensitivity of Project Site” for additional mitigating factors.

Response to Comment 1-5.

Occupancy Trespass
The Draft EIR addresses occupancy trespass on page 4.C-27 in Section 4.C, Biological Resources, which is also addressed on page 4.C-41 of the RDEIR. As indicated on page 4.C-27 of the Draft EIR and 4.C-41 of the RDEIR, the project would incorporate barriers to prevent human and pet encroachment into the natural areas outside the proposed subdivision. Specifically, Project Design Feature BIO-6 on Draft EIR page 4.C-22 (RDEIR page 4.C-41) will include walls, exclusionary fencing, and special edge treatments in accordance with City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-23

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan requirements to separate developed areas from open space areas and minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animals predation, and illegal trespass and dumping. Furthermore, per Project Design Features BIO-7 and BIO-8 provided on Draft EIR page 4.C-22 and RDEIR page 4.C-42), access points between native habitat and project development will be posted with signage requesting project residents to stay on the trails, not disturb habitat, and keep pets leashed and educational pamphlets will be provided to project residents educating them on the potential adverse impacts to biological resources and native habitats should these requests be ignored. Project Design Feature BIO-8 also prohibits back gates in the required private yard fencing. Therefore, significant occupancy trespass into open space areas adjacent to the proposed project would not occur.

Use of Public Lands for Urban Support
With regard to the concern that there may be an expectation on the part of the project applicant for use of public lands to provide urban support (e.g., accommodation of roads, water tanks/water transmission lines, etc.) and/or wildfire defensible space for the proposed project: (1) as indicated in Figures 2-6, 2-7, 4.G-1A and 4.G-1B of the Draft EIR, the 270.9-acre project site occurs wholly on private property, and would not include the construction of urban support systems or the provision of required wildfire defensible space on public land; (2) as indicated on page 2-15 of the Draft EIR, the four U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service parcels within the greater 394.8-acre annexation area, as well as the open space parcel at the south edge of the annexation area, would be maintained as permanent open space; (3) as indicated on page 2-15 of the Draft EIR, vehicle access to the project would be from the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension and Trudy Way; and (4) as indicated on page 2-21 of the Draft EIR, all project water, wastewater, and storm drainage infrastructure improvements would be constructed wholly within the project site or within City rights-ofway, and as indicated on page 4.I-24, natural gas and electrical lines are currently located in the surrounding streets. Therefore, the project and associated infrastructure and wildfire defensible space would be developed wholly on private and not public land.

Response to Comment 1-6.

Access to the CNF
Public and administrative access to the CNF is addressed in Section 4.I, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR. As indicated on pages 4.I-9 and 4.I-15, the four U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service parcels within the annexation area, and the open space parcel at the south edge of the annexation area, would be maintained as permanent open space which would allow continued access to Skyline Drive which serves as trail access to the CNF as well as the trails within the CNF themselves. As indicated in Figure 2-7, Tentative Tract Map 36544, in Chapter 2, Project Description, the portion of Skyline Drive within the annexation area would be preserved. As indicated on page 4.I-12 and in Figures 4.I-1 and 4.I-2, the project would not alter Skyline Trail or the access point to that trail along Foothill Parkway. As indicated in Figure 2-7 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the existing unimproved road leading from Maybey Canyon Road through the project site into Mabey Canyon within the CNF would be retained. Therefore, existing publically accessible trails would be preserved, and existing access to the CNF preserved, under the project.

Unplanned Roads/Trails
With regard to unplanned roads and trails directly out of the subdivision, and unauthorized motorized vehicle use, please see Response to Comment 1-5 “Occupancy Trespass”. As indicated therein, project design City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-24
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
features (e.g., walls, exclusionary fencing, a prohibition on back gates in private yard fencing) are proposed which would eliminate substantial occupancy trespass and avoid unplanned roads and trails into adjacent CNF open space areas.

Survey/Post of Private Property Boundary Line
With regard to the request for the project to survey and post the private property boundary line, within the project area, where it abuts NFS lands, this has been added as a project design feature in Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR, in this Final EIR.

Response to Comment 1-7. This comment references a 40-acre Cleveland National Forest parcel, which does not correspond to the development portion of the Skyline Heights project site. However, the project site does surround a 10-acre USFS parcel (APN 275-040-010), which is designated as “NOT A PART” (NAP) on the project tentative tract map. The proponent proposes to mitigate both potential direct and indirect impacts to the 10-acre NAP parcel via the avoidance and the deed restricting of an equal size parcel of land, which is located immediately adjacent to land owned by the USFS in the western portion of the project site.

The Exchanged or Compensation parcel (currently part of APN 275-040-006), which is also 10 acres, is immediately adjacent to the CNF and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Core B. This 10-acre property would add to the total acreage of contiguous land within the Core that would remain undeveloped in perpetuity. In addition to the 10 acres, those areas not impacted by the proposed project will also be deed restricted to prevent future development. The avoided land to the west of the proposed development will also add to the total acreage of contiguous land with the Core that would remain undeveloped in perpetuity.

The 10-acre parcel proposed for compensation is in the far west portion of the project site, in proximity to the NAP parcel and within the Santa Ana foothills. The compensation parcel supports 2.5 acres of coastal sage scrub, 0.79 acre of coastal sage scrub-chaparral intergrade, 6.54 acres of chaparral, 0.17 acre of coast live oak woodland, and two (2) jurisdictional features. In addition, the compensation parcel supports approximately ±1,396 chaparral nolina (Nolina cismontana) and 116 intermediate mariposa lilies (Calochortus weedii var. intermedius). There are no access roads on the property. The proposed development is adjacent to the compensation parcel, but only a narrow east/west band comes close to the parcel. Another ±7 acres of natural land will be avoided by the development immediately east of the 10-acre parcel and will remain undeveloped.

Although the land surrounding the 10-acre NAP parcel is currently undeveloped, the NAP parcel is not contiguous with CNF land since it is surrounded by private property. In an effort to not isolate the NAP parcel, the project design includes approximately 22 acres to the east and south that would be avoided and deed restricted around the 10-acre NAP parcel. This area is contiguous with another large area of currently undeveloped land to the south, which would allow for some opportunities for sensitive plants and animals to disperse. Urban and Wildlands interface measures would also be utilized to minimize edge effects to the area surrounding the 10-acre NAP as well as to the avoided habitat west of the development.

Please see Response to Comment 1-5 above regarding encroachment and enforcement issues.

Response to Comment 1-8. The Draft EIR addressed the widland fire hazards associated with the project in Section 4.G, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, with supporting data provided in Appendix G, Phase I City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-25

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Environmental Site Assessment and Fuel Modification Report. As indicated on pages 4.G-15 and 4.G-16, while the project site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), the project would replace highly flammable vegetation with plants on the City’s approved list of fire-resistant species, and would implement a fuel modification plan, which would decrease rather than increase the wildland fire potential in the area. As such, the project would result in a less than significant wildland fire hazards with:
adherence to applicable requirements (including with CBC Chapter 7A, Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure, and requirements related to fire access, fire flows, and number of hydrants); implementation of the proposed project design features (including the fuel modification plan); and implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures (including CFD review and approval of the site plan, fuel modification plan, and project design features, and payment of the required “Fire Facilities Fund” fees).

With regard to the comment that the project would increase the potential for human-caused wildfires, and that the Draft EIR does not adequately evaluate this increased potential, as indicated above, the project would replace highly flammable vegetation with fire-resistant species, and would implement a fuel modification plan, which together would reduce rather than increase the wildland fire hazard on-site. Also, the project would include roadway development that would increase rather than decrease fire fighting vehicle access to the area, and would include the extension of water infrastructure, including for firefighting purposes, where no such infrastructure currently exists. Furthermore, the area already includes an existing urban-rural interface, so the potential for human-cause wildfires in the area already exists; the project would merely move the existing urban-rural interface line. City of Corona Fire would assume responsibility of the area once annexed into the City. However, the City has an automatic aid contract with the U. S. Forest Service and participates in the Master Mutual Aid Plan with Cal Fire. Both documents provide the Corona Fire Department with cooperative assistance from these two agencies in wildland fires. Lastly, it is noted that the significance threshold used in the wildland fire hazard analysis in the Draft EIR is verbatim from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, and states that a significant wildland fire hazard would occur if the project would “Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires…”, not expose wildlands to an increased potential for wildland fires.

Based on the above, the project would reduce the wildland fire hazard both on and adjacent to the project site, and the wildland fire hazard impact would be less than significant. Additional support for this conclusion is provided in the Fuel Modification Report as set forth below. • Pages 4 and 5 of the Fuel Modification Report address the nature and relationship that the home owner, HOA and City Fire Department has to minimize the potential for human caused fires. This includes, but is not limited, to inspections and additional Fuel Modification Plan approval at the time of building site layout and permit approval.
• This issue is addressed in the Calculations and approach that the BEHAVE PLUS FIRE MODELING SYSTEM SOFTWARE, which was utilized for the Fuel Modification Report. With the development information at hand at the time of the writing of the report, the recommendations are conservative and will be reviewed and modified as required by the City of Corona as the development plans proceed. Refer to Fuel Modification Report pages 8 thru 16. • As indicated on page 5, Section 8, of the Fuel Modification Report, the Fuel Modification plan does provide prudent and restrictive solutions to the interface between the CNF and the proposed development in accordance with the state, county and local requirements for fuel modification and City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-26
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
wild land fire protection.
• As indicated on page 3, Section 5, of the Fuel Modification Report, the minimum distance from the limits of the maintained fuel modification zone includes an additional 30’ of defensible area for all structure setbacks.
• As indicated on page 4, Section, 6, of the Fuel Modification Report, the Fuel Modification Plan places the responsibility for maintaining of the fuel modification zones directly on the shoulders of the HOA and the property owner not the CNF.
• As indicated on pages 112 through 118 of the Fuel Modification Report, the species identified in the plant palette includes native species that are compatible with fuel modification activities and the habitat in which we are proposing to develop.

The slopes where trees are located within the fuel modification zones will be planted under the restrictions and guidelines for defensible space. The planting of invasive species is not proposed. The only reason that the trees are limited to the intersection of property lines at the top of slopes; is to provide some screening of the residential units while providing views.

Response to Comment 1-9.

Visual/Aesthetic Impacts
The comment that the project’s visual impacts would directly affect the area’s aesthetics to a significant and unavoidable level is noted. Please see Responses to Comments 1-4 under “Scenic Integrity” and 1-9 under “Visual Sensitivity of Project Site”.

Visual Sensitivity of Project Site
With regard to the comment that the project area is one of the most visible landscapes on the CNF, and is maintained as an undeveloped island and natural-appearing backdrop to the I-15 and CA-91 corridors, it is acknowledged that CNF’s 2005 LMP says this with respect to the Elsinore Place portion of the CNF, which appears by the LMP’s Scenic Integrity Objectives Map to cover most of the Corona Hills (e.g., the east-facing slopes of the CNF). However, the project site is located along the bottom-most (e.g., eastern most) portion of the Corona Hills, and directly adjacent to existing residential tracts. Furthermore, the LMP’s Scenic Integrity Objectives Map doesn’t even assign a Scenic Integrity Objective (e.g., moderate, high, very high) to the project site and greater annexation area. These factors suggest that the project site is located within one of the less visibly-sensitive portions of the Elsinore Place area. Furthermore, as discussed in Response to Comment 1-3, the project site is located on private land within Riverside County’s land use jurisdiction and the City of Corona’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) rather than on public land within the Forest Service’s land use jurisdiction, and is designated by the County and City for urban development. Therefore, the project site is not located within one of the most visible landscapes in the CNF, and is not to be maintained as an undeveloped island. However, the Draft EIR discloses the fact the project would alter the natural setting of the site and will result in a significant and unavoidable impact on aesthetics.

Maintenance of Skyline Silhouette
With regard to the comment that among the desired conditions and landscape attributes on the CNF is City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-27

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
maintenance of the skyline silhouette of the Santa Ana Mountains, as indicated on pages 4.A-14 and 4.A-15 of the Draft EIR: “While the project would permanently alter the foreground views of the foothills of the Santa Monica Mountains, the background views to the Santa Ana Mountains would remain following project implementation.” This is apparent from Figures 2-1 and 2-2 of the Draft EIR which show that the project site is located near the foot rather than ridge tops of the Santa Ana Mountains, and thus would not affect the skyline silhouette of the Santa Ana Mountains.

Impact on “Forest Experience”
With regard to the comment that the impacts of the project (e.g., noise, increased demand for NFS lands, parking, need for sanitation) on the Forest experience have not been adequately evaluated, the Draft EIR:
addressed the biological resources impacts of the project in Section 4.C, Biological Resources, with supporting data provided in Appendix D, Biological Resources Assessment, Surveys, and Jurisdictional Delineation; addressed the noise impacts of the project in Section 4.J, Noise, with supporting data provided in Appendix I, Noise Impact Analysis; addressed the park and recreational impacts of the project in Section

4.L, Public Services; addressed the parking impacts of the project in Section 4.M, Transportation, with supporting data provided in Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis; and addressed the sanitation (e.g., solid waste) impacts of the project in Section 4.N, Utilities and Service Systems. In addition, additional analysis of biological resources impacts was subsequently provided in Section 4.C, Biological Resources, in the RDEIR, with supporting documentation and analysis provided in Appendix A of the RDEIR. Furthermore, an analysis of project consistency with applicable goals and objectives of the 2005 CNF LMP has been added in Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR, in this Final EIR. However, CEQA and applicable federal, State, County and local regulations do not require analysis of impacts on the “Forest experience” in an EIR.

Proposed On-Site Park and Recreational Facilities
With regard to the comment “Nor does there appear to be much alternative on the proposed developed private land for similar opportunities”, it is unclear exactly what the commenter intended by this comment.

If the comment intends to indicate that the project does not provide sufficient on-site park and recreational facilities required to meet project demand, the parks and recreation impacts of the Project are evaluated in Section 4.L, Public Services, of the Draft EIR. As indicated on page 4.L-17, the project is not proposing new on-site park or recreational facilities (although, as indicated on pages 2-15 through 2-19 of the Draft EIR, the project is proposing on-site open space and landscape features). However, as indicated therein (pages 4.L17 and 4.L-18), the project would result in less than significant parks and recreation impacts with implementation of the proposed project design features and implementation of Mitigation Measure PS-5 which requires compliance with City of Corona Municipal Code Chapter 16.35 (Park Dedication and In Lieu Fees). Compliance with Mitigation Measure PS-5, in particular, would ensure park and recreation facilities are being accounted for with this project as the proponent would be required to dedicate land for a park or pay an in-lieu fee for such facility to be developed elsewhere.

Vantage Points/Visual Simulations
With regard to the choice of visual simulations included in the aesthetics analysis in the Draft EIR, as indicated on page 4.A-10 of the Draft EIR, the focus of the visual analysis is on the potential for the project to adversely affect views from publically accessible vantage points (i.e., views from public roads, trails, towns, parks, or bridges instead of from private viewing locations). The four viewpoints selected for analysis, as indicated in Figures 4.A-3 through 4.A-6, were selected because they meet this definition, are frequented by a City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-28
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
large number of people, and are relatively close to the project site and thus provide a worst-case or near worst-cast analysis. While it is acknowledged that the CNF is bisected by public trails which are publically accessible, the project site is visible from only a small number of these trails, these trails are not accessed by large numbers of people (at least compared to the number of people that frequent the four vantage points selected for analysis), and are not all close to the project site. Furthermore, because most of the trails within the CNF from which the site may be visible are located to the west with generally higher elevations than the project site, easterly views from these vantage points include not only the small foreground area that includes the project site, but also the larger background area that includes the valley with the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains in the background. Thus, the project site represents a relatively small portion of the total field of view from these vantage points, so that the project would have less impact on views and visual character from these vantage points than from the four vantage points selected for analysis.

Finally, as discussed in Response to Comment 1-9, the LMP’s Scenic Integrity Objectives Map doesn’t even assign a Scenic Integrity Objective (e.g., moderate, high, very high) to the project site and greater annexation area which suggests that the project site is located within one of the less visibly-sensitive portions of the Elsinore Place area. For all these reasons, the vantage points included in the analysis are adequate, and no additional vantage points from the CNF are required.

Response to Comment 1-10.

Support for Reduced Density Alternative, and Opposition to General Plan Amendment The NFS’s support for the Reduced Density Alternative, its opposition to the proposed General Plan Amendment from Rural Residential to Low Density Residential, and its willingness to work together with the City of Corona to address the impacts of the project on the CNF, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers for their consideration. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Wildland Urban Interface
With respect to the comment that it is far more appropriate to maintain a lower density of residential units in the Wildland Urban Interface, we could find no evidence that the project site is located in the Wildland Urban Interface. According to p.6 of the 2005 CNF LMP, most Wildland/Urban Interface Zones are anticipated to be located within the Developed Area Interface (e.g., DAI), with such areas intended to have a broad range of higher intensity uses but be managed to limit development to a slow increase of carefully designed facilities to help direct use into the most suitable areas. However, according to the LMP’s Land-Use Zones Map, the project site is located on Non-Forest System Land rather than within the DAI or any other LMP-designated Land-Use Zone. As discussed in Response to Comment 1-3, the project site is located on private land within Riverside County’s land use jurisdiction and the City of Corona’s Sphere of Influence (SOI), and is designated by the County and City for urban development.

With regard to the request for adherence to all provisions that maintain development solely on private lands, and neither provide nor imply a reliance on NFS lands for infrastructure or vegetation management, please see Response to Comment 1-5.

Impacts on the CNF
With regard to the request that the impacts of the project on the CNF be given more intensive analysis, City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-29

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
please see Response to Comments 1-3 and 1-6. As indicated therein: (1) the project would not substantially accelerate certain ongoing challenges that the LMP directs the Forest Service to remedy related to population density; (2) the project would retain access to the CNF; and (3) an analysis has been added to the Draft EIR in Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR, in this Final EIR, which evaluates project consistency with the 2005 CNF LMP.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-30

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 2
State of California
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
Scott Morgan, Director
State Clearinghouse and Plan. Unit
1400 Tenth Street
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
Response to Letter 2
Response to Comment 2-1. The State Clearinghouse identifies the CEQA-required 45-day review period for the Draft EIR, acknowledges compliance with agency review requirements, identifies the state agency that reviewed the Draft EIR, and attaches the comments from that State agencies. As this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

One comment letter from State agencies was attached to the State Clearinghouse letter, a letter dated January 19, 2016 from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW). The DFW letter is included as Comment Letter 3 in this Final EIR. Written responses to the comments made in the DFW letter are included as Responses to Comments 3-1 through 3-8 in this Final EIR.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-34
State of California - Natural Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Inland Deserts Region
3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C-220
Ontario, CA 91764
(909) 484-0459
www.wildlife.ca.gov
January 19, 2016
Jason Moquin
Senior Planner
City of Corona
400 S. Vicentia Avenue
Corona, CA 92882
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report
Skyline Heights Development Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2014021003
Dear Mr. Moquin:

EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., Governor
CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director
The Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Skyline Heights Development Project (project) [State Clearinghouse No. 2014021003]. The Department is responding to the DEIR as a Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources (California Fish and Game Code Sections 711 .7 and 1802, and the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines Section 15386), and as a Responsible Agency regarding any discretionary actions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381 ), such as the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 et seq.) and/or a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit for Incidental Take of Endangered, Threatened, and/or Candidate species (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2080 and 2080.1 ).

The proposed project is located within the City of Corona (City) Sphere of Influence in unincorporated Riverside County. Specifically, the site is located west of the City's western boundary, south of Avenida Del Vista, north of Skyline Drive and latitude 33°50'28.45", and west of the Cleveland National Forest and longitude -11 r37'02.25".

Richland Developers, the project Applicant, is proposing the development of approximately 292 single-family residences on approximately 270.9 acres. To facilitate the development, the Applicant proposes the annexation of the project site and surrounding parcels totaling approximately 394.8 acres into the City of Corona. Of the approximately 270.9 acre project site, approximately 21.38 acres would be reserved as right-of-way for construction of the City's Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension between Green River Road and Trudy Way.

Conserving Ca{ijornia's WiUCife Since 1870
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Skyline Heights Development Project
SCH No. 2014021003

Page 2 of 6 ends

Of the proposed 292 single-family residences, 45 would be developed north of Mabey Canyon and 247 would be developed to the south. The development would occur in three phases. Phase I would consist of 157 homes to be constructed in the central and south sectors of the site, to the south of Mabey Canyon and along the future Trudy Way alignment. Phase II would consist of 90 homes to be constructed in the center of the site, south of Mabey Canyon and to the west of the future Trudy Way alignment.

Phase Ill would consist of 45 homes to be constructed to the north of Mabey Canyon.

Comments and Recommendations
Following review of the DEIR, the Department offers the comments and recommendations presented below to assist the City of Corona (City; the CEQA lead agency) in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the project's significant, or potentially significant, impacts on biological resources:

Focused Botanical Surveys: Focused botanical surveys were conducted from March through July, 2013. The Department is concerned that these surveys may have been inadequate to form a complete inventory of the plant species present on the site for the following reasons:
a) The surveys are over two years old. It is possible that some species that were not observed during the 2013 surveys may have since spread to the project site; b) At least one of the sensitive species judged to have a moderate to high potential to inhabit the site -white rabbit tobacco - has a blooming period outside of the period during which focused surveys took place and may have been overlooked or misidentified; and
c) Conditions have changed since the surveys occurred. The surveys took place during an unusually dry year. Due to the ongoing drought, some sensitive plant species potentially present on the site may have failed to bloom. Other species may have been present in the seed bank or in bulb form. Annual and short-lived perennial plant species and plants with persistent long-lived seed banks may not germinate every year. In addition, the phenological development of some plants may be altered because of the drought. Because of these conditions, the failure to locate a plant during the floristic surveys of one field season does not constitute evidence that the plant is absent from the surveyed location. With the expected El Nino event in 2016, it is reasonable to expect changes in the observable species assemblage.

In order to provide a more complete description of the baseline conditions of the site, the Department recommends that focused surveys following the Department's 2009 Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Communities be conducted during the appropriate times of year, and that the results be included in the final EIR. If additional special-status plant populations are observed, the final EIR should include appropriate avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures to address additional impacts.

Draft Environmental Impact Report
Skyline Heights Development Project
SCH No. 2014021003

Page 3 of 6 ends

Impacts to Coulter's Matilija Poppy and Intermediate Mariposa Lily: The Department encourages the City to avoid and preserve populations of Coulter's matilija poppy and intermediate mariposa lily to the greatest extent feasible. If any populations exist in or near natural open space, the Department recommends that they be connected to existing conserved lands via a corridor of undisturbed land, and protected by placement of a conservation easement over the population and corridor.

Mountain Lion Safety: The list of species observed in the DEIR's Biological Resources Assessment (Appendix D) includes mountain lion (Puma concolor). Based on this, the project's construction may encroach into at least one lion's current home range. The Department is concerned about potential safety issues (both for future residents and for mountain lions) that may arise from human-lion conflicts. In a study investigating the causes of death in 36 southern California mountain lions, over half were killed by human-lion interactions, including 10 vehicle strikes, 6 killed legally with depredation permits, 4 killed illegally, and 1 killed in a public safety incident (Vickers 2015).

In order to reduce the likelihood of human-lion conflicts, the Department recommends that the City revise the DEIR to require implementation of a Homeowner Education Program containing guidelines for safe and responsible living in mountain lion country.

Guidelines should include recommendations for safe driving practices on roads that mountain lions may cross; warnings against letting pets outside unsupervised or leaving dogs in back yards over night, as unsupervised pets may attract mountain lions; recommendation to keep pet food inside and/or inaccessible to wildlife; and instructions on how to stay safe if a mountain lion is spotted. If a Homeowners' Association is planned for the development, we recommend that these guidelines be included in the Association's codes, covenants, and restrictions.

The Department also recommends that signage warning of potential mountain lion presence be placed throughout the development, particularly in areas adjacent to open space.

Impacts to Species Not Adequately Conserved under the MSHCP: The DEIR's Biological Resources Assessment lists several special-status species that occur, or have the potential to occur, on the project site, and are not covered by the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that State Species of Special Concern, plant species ranked as rare and endangered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), and other sensitive and special status species should be included in an analysis of project impacts if they can be shown to meet the criteria of sensitivity outlined therein.

Sections 15063 and 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines, which address how an impact is identified as significant, are particularly relevant to sensitive species. Project-level impacts to listed (rare, threatened, or endangered) species are generally considered significant thus requiring lead agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Report to fully analyze and evaluate the impacts. In assigning "impact significance" to populations of non-listed species, analysts usually consider factors such as population- Draft Environmental Impact Report
Skyline Heights Development Project
SCH No. 2014021003

Page 4 of 6 ends

level effects, proportion of the taxon's range affected by a project, regional effects, and impacts to habitat features.

The Department is particularly concerned with the project's potential impacts to chaparral nolina, white rabbit tobacco, California silvery legless lizard, San Bernardino/San Diego ringneck snake, coast patch-nosed snake, pallid bat, and Dulzura pocket mouse. These species have all been designated either 18.2/28.2 ("moderately threatened in California") by the CNPS, or state rank S3, S2, or S1 ("vulnerable to extirpation", "very vulnerable to extirpation", or "especially vulnerable to extirpation") by the State. The Department considers impacts to these species to be potentially significant. Therefore, the Department recommends that the following measures be added to the final EIR to further reduce the potential direct impact to these species:

A qualified biologist shall inspect debris piles, pipes, burrows, vegetation, leaf litter piles, and other potential refugia for sensitive wildlife species prior to initiation of clearing, grubbing, grading, or any other project activity that may injure or kill sensitive wildlife species. If wildlife is discovered, the qualified biologist shall move it out of harm's way or allow it to move safely out of the work area prior to initiation of project activities.

Potential day roosts for pallid bat (e.g., caves, crevices, mines, hollow trees, buildings, etc.) shall be inspected by a qualified bat biologist prior to impacts. If bats are roosting, a bat exclusion plan shall be prepared and submitted to CDFW for review prior to impacts. If a colony is discovered during the maternity season (March - October), the bat biologist shall determine appropriate avoidance measures, including, but not limited to sound walls, buffers, and project phasing/timing, to prevent disturbance to the colony until all young are weaned and capable of foraging independently.

These measures will not completely preclude direct impacts to all of the above mentioned species, and they do not address the project impacts to habitat. The Department recommends that the remaining potential for direct impact and the habitat impacts be mitigated by preserving the natural open space areas in perpetuity via a conservation easement and providing a non-wasting endowment to fund their longterm management by an appropriate conservation entity.

Impacts to Riparian and Riverine Habitat: The DEIR estimates that the project will result in impacts to 6.17 acres of riparian and streambed habitat, and proposes to mitigate the impacts "at no less than a 1:1 ratio" or more, as specified by the Department in a Streambed Alteration Agreement. Please note that, due to potential factors such as net loss of streambed habitat, uncertainty of mitigation success, distance between the impacted area and the mitigation site, differences in habitat type Draft Environmental Impact Report
Skyline Heights Development Project
SCH No. 2014021003

Page 5 of 6 ends

between the impacted area and the mitigation site, and temporal lag between impacts and establishment of replacement habitat, a 1:1 mitigation ratio is unlikely to be sufficient to reduce the project impacts to a less than significant effect. While the Department is unable to provide a specific ratio without knowing the location and type of mitigation proposed, it is likely that providing sufficient mitigation for the proposed impacts will be extremely costly, and locating in-kind mitigation opportunities may be difficult.

The Department encourages the City and the project Proponent to consider revising the project design to avoid ravines and streambeds to the greatest possible extent, and to build spanning bridges rather than placing roadways directly on top of existing streambed. This could significantly reduce project impacts to streambed and the cost of mitigation, and may also reduce the potential for impacts to sensitive wildlife species and to wildlife movement.

Updated DBESP: A Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) was submitted to the Department and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (collectively, the Wildlife Agencies) in May 2014. The DEIR includes an updated DBESP dated March 2015. At the time of writing this letter, the Department has been unable to confirm receipt of the updated DB ESP. Therefore, in order to finalize the MSHCP consistency review process, the Department requests that the City submit a hard copy of the updated DB ESP to the Wildlife Agencies for review prior to approving . the project.

Further Coordination
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Skyline Heights Development Project (SCH No. 2014021003), and requests that the City address the Department's comments and concerns prior to circulating the final EIR. If you should have any questions pertaining to these comments, please contact Gabriele Quillman at (909) 980-3818 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
cc: State-Clearinghouse, Sacramento
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Skyline Heights Development Project
SCH No. 2014021003

Page 6 of 6 ends

Literature Cited
Vickers TW, Sanchez JN, Johnson CK, Morrison SA, Botta R, Smith T, et al. (2015) Survival and Mortality of Pumas (Puma concolor) in a Fragmented, Urbanizing Landscape. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0131490.
doi:1 0.1371 /journal.pone.0131490
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 3
State of California
Natural Resources Agency
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Inland Deserts Region
Leslie MacNair, Regional Manager
3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C-220
Ontario, CA 91764
Response to Letter 3
Response to Comment 3-1. This comment provides a general introduction regarding the comments raised in this letter. Responses to the comments contained in this letter are provided below in Responses to Comments 3-2 through 3-8.

Response to Comment 3-2. In addition to the original 2013 surveys, L&L Environmental, Inc. performed updated focused botanical surveys between April and August 2016. All species observed during the surveys were documented and the site was assessed for appropriate botanical species during the specific flowering periods when the species may reasonably be observed and properly identified at the site.

White rabbit tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum), which is also known as white cudweed, is included in the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants as a Rank 2B.2 (rare, threatened, or endangered in CA).

Our analysis indicated this species had a moderate probability of occurrence within suitable habitat. This plant has a blooming period between August and November during conditions suitable to the species.

Focused plant surveys were conducted in August 2016, which is within this species’ blooming period.

Additionally, L&L Environmental, Inc. identified a reference site near the project site, which confirmed this species was in bloom at the offsite location at the time the August 2016 surveys were conducted on the project site. White rabbit tobacco was not observed within the project site during the August 2016 focused surveys, at which time it should have been detected had it been present because it was documented nearby as in bloom, or during any of the other previously conducted surveys. It can be confidently concluded that this species does not current occur on the project site.

Updated focused botanical surveys were conducted between April and August 2016. Although rainfall varied throughout southern California, records for the Corona Airport and the nearby Corona weather station KCACORON19 documented rainfall from September 1, 2015 through August 23, 2016 as 7.72 and 10 inches, respectively. Rainfall during the 2015-2016 season continued to be lower than the average of 12 inches, but this total is significantly higher than the 2012-2013 survey season, which was recorded as 4.9 and 5.92, respectively. Field biologists reported a good blooming season on the project site and documented 145 additional botanical species during the 2016 focused surveys, thereby reducing the probability that species were overlooked during surveys.

Updated botanical surveys were completed between April and August 2016, which were conducted pursuant to the CDFW 2009 protocol. A list of all species observed during the 2016 focused botanical surveys and revised habitat mapping is provided in the “Updated Biological Resources Assessment for TTM 36544; City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-41

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Skyline Heights Project, City of Corona, Riverside County, California” (Appendix A of the RDEIR). The comprehensive 2016 surveys did confirm the presence of additoinal special-status plant species populations, for which appropriate mitigation has been recommended. Impacts to all special status plant species were also evaluated and avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures were included in the Updated Biological Resources Assessment.

Response to Comment 3-3. The project design will avoid some populations of Coulter’s matilija poppy (Romneya coulteri) and intermediate mariposa lily. Revised mitigation measures below, including Mitigation Measures BIO-MM2, BIO-MM3, and BIO-MM4 contained in the RDEIR (and subsequently modified per CDFW input), as well as Mitigation Measure BIO-MM5 contained in the RDEIR, will reduce impacts to Coulter’s matilija poppy, chaparral nolina and intermediate mariposa lily.

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM2. Mitigation shall be provided for impacts to Coulter’s matilija poppy, intermediate mariposa lily, and chaparral nolina.
• Impacts shall be minimized and avoided to the extent feasible. Coulter’s matilija poppy and intermediate mariposa lily plants within the development footprint shall be salvaged for use in the project area, avoidance area, or reuse in local restoration projects. In addition, a qualified botanist shall collect seeds from plants within the grading impact area during the spring or summer before grading commencement.
• Impacts to chaparral nolina shall be mitigated through translocation and seed collection with propagation to an on-site or off‐site preserved property acceptable to the City. The property shall be composed of habitat characteristics suitable to support chaparral nolina, including but not limited to: appropriate soils, elevation, and supporting chaparral or coastal sage scrub (or a combination thereof) habitat. The property shall be conserved via recordation of a conservation easement or deed restriction in favor of a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)-due diligence approved local conservation entity to protect chaparral nolina on the property in perpetuity. Alternatively, the land may be transferred in fee title to a CDFW-approved local conservation entity. A management fund shall be established by the Applicant and will consist of an interest-bearing account with the amount of capital necessary to generate sufficient interest and/or income to fund all monitoring, management, and protection of the conservation area(s), including but not limited to, reasonable administrative overhead, biological monitoring, invasive species and trash removal, signage replacement and repair, law enforcement measures, long-term management reporting (as described below), and other actions designed to maintain and improve the habitat of the conserved land(s), in perpetuity. A Property Analysis Record, or substantially equivalent analysis, shall be conducted by the Applicant and approved by the City to determine the management needs and costs described above, which then will be used to calculate the capital needed for the management of the fund. This management fund shall be held and managed by a CDFW-approved local conservation entity. To protect the mitigation area(s), the Applicant shall place appropriate signage around the perimeter of each site. Except for uses appropriate to a habitat conservation area, the public shall not have access to the mitigation area(s), and no activities shall be permitted within the site, except maintenance of habitat, including the removal of nonnative plant species, trash, and debris, and the installation of native plant materials.

Prior to any ground disturbance, the Applicant shall prepare a Chaparral Nolina Planting Plan (Plan) for chaparral nolina. The Plan shall require a replacement ratio of 1:1 by area, and ensure a City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-42
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
minimum 90 percent survivorship at the end of a five-year monitoring period, which shall be verified by the monitoring biologist (minimum qualifications of the monitoring biologist are specified below). At a minimum, the five-year plan shall include the following information:

1. a description of the existing conditions of the receiver site(s) characterizing the suitability of the site(s) for chaparral nolina, and documenting the acreage of the site,

2. a description of how the site will be preserved in perpetuity, e.g., conservation easement, deed restriction, etc., and the name of the CDFW-approved due diligence entity that will hold the easement/deed restriction, etc.,

3. qualifications of the monitoring biologist. At a minimum the monitoring biologist will possess a minimum of five-year's experience conducting habitat restoration projects in coastal sage scrub and/or chaparral habitat in Riverside County, California,

4. receiver site preparation for transplanting,

5. goals for success,

6. schedule,

7. propagation techniques,

8. transplant and seedling installation methods,

9. plant spacing,

10. performance criteria for success, including provision for control of non-native and invasive species,

11. monitoring and reporting procedures for each of the five years of the monitoring period,

12. adaptive management strategies, including a contingency plan should the site fail to meet the specified success criteria, and maintenance requirements that will be reviewed and approved by the City. The Plan shall also ensure a mixture of both male and female plants.

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project Applicant shall preserve a minimum of 10 acres (a 1:1 ratio) of natural habitat, biologically equivalent or superior to the PQP land the project site surrounds, adjacent to USFS land. The compensation parcel shall either be:

1. Deeded in fee title to the USFS or RCA to ensure appropriate protection and permanent habitat management in perpetuity, or

2. Conserved via recordation of a conservation easement or deed restriction in favor of a CDFW-due diligence approved local conservation entity.

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM4. Those areas of the project site not impacted by the project footprint, including Riparian/Riverine and excluding the minimum 10-acre preservation area identified in BIOMM3, shall be conserved in perpetuity via the recordation of a conservation easement or deed restriction in favor of a CDFW-approved local conservation entity; or transferred in fee title to a CDFW-approved local conservation entity. The avoided Riparian/Riverine areas shall be conserved prior to issuance of a grading permit. The CDFW-approved local conservation entity shall manage the conservation areas to protect the long-term conservation, functions and values in-perpetuity.

With the implementation of BIO-MM3 and BIO-MM4, a portion of these species’ on-site populations will be avoided and preserved in perpetuity. The proposed project design will avoid 139 of the 455 (31%) observed City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-43

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
intermediate mariposa lily, 386 of the 691 (56%) Coulter’s matilija poppy, and ±2,667 of the estimated 5,343 (50%) chaparral nolina.

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM5. The project Applicant shall add more common cultivar forms of Coulter’s matilija poppy to the list of plants to be avoided in site landscaping, including White Cloud matilija poppy. Additional non-native plants to be avoided in any onsite mitigation or landscaping include coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) and fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens). To ensure these non-native plants are not used in landscaping within the project site, the project Applicant shall include a list of plant species to avoid within the CC&Rs for the development. The project applicant shall also develop and distribute a suitable homeowner education package to residents / new owners covering the species to avoid.

In addition, all the avoided populations, with the exception of the east-central portion of the site, are connected to land within the Cleveland National Forest. All avoided populations are contiguous with large tracts of mostly undisturbed native habitats.

Avoided populations within the east-central portion of the project site will be conserved within an approximately 22-acre area, which is adjacent to the 10-acre NAP USFS parcel. This area is contiguous with another large area of currently undeveloped land to the south. Creation of a corridor to USFS land to the west is infeasible as it would require a corridor of a minimum of 1,800 feet long through the center of the project area. The corridor would need both drainage features and hillsides to provide potential habitat for the avoided species. The requirement of a drainage feature would necessitate the corridor to be along drainage Feature 3.

Avoidance of Feature 3 is infeasible since it would require the complete removal of the secondary access point. Without contiguous access providing an efficient looped water system within the project site, risk in fire situations would be increased. In addition, constructing the project without impacting the drainage would result in effectively eliminating the lower two-thirds of the project site, which would not generate enough revenue to pay for the needed infrastructure and other improvements.

Creation of a bridge over Feature 3 results in similar difficulties as those discussed in the ‘Reduced Lot Count Alternative’ in the Updated Biological Assessment (Appendix A of the RDEIR), which discusses creation of a bridge over Feature 1. The expense of constructing a bridge in combination with the resulting reduced lot count would create a financially infeasible project. Without the filling of the un-named stream of Feature 3, the project design will need to export 3 to 4 million cubic yards of material or radically adjust the development footprint to reduce cut. Since this site requires hillside grading, export of that much material would have a significant impact on existing residents and roads, would be extremely expensive, and redesigning the site and streets to reduce cut while maintaining a comparable lot count is not feasible.

Inability to fill the un-named stream reduces the developable footprint and would reduce lot count significantly from the 292 lots shown on TTM 36544. This alternative would be financially infeasible due to increased costs and reduced lot yield. In addition, alternative land plans require that additional water, sewer, and roadway infrastructure facilities be constructed in a less efficient manner and, therefore, would substantially increase the cost of development.

Response to Comment 3-4. The Updated Biological Assessment and RDEIR included the following City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-44
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
mitigation measure:

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM5. A mountain lion (Puma concolor) program shall be developed by the project Applicant for City review and approval in an effort to reduce likelihood of human-lion conflicts.

The program shall include the following components:

1. A suitable homeowner education package for distribution to residents / new owners;

2. A suitable road sign program warning of the presence of mountain lions and the need for reduced speeds and increased caution;

3. A suitable CC&R provision limiting unsupervised outdoor pets and pet feeding practices that may encourage mountain lions to enter residential yards in search of food; and

4. A suitable mountain lion safety plan.

The City will review the mountain lion program and will include the requirement for mountain lion signage throughout the development and at adjacent to open spaces.

Response to Comment 3-5. The special-status species identified in this comment as having a moderate or high potential of occurring on the project site, but are not identified as ‘Covered Species’ under the MSHCP, were evaluated in more detail in the Updated Biological Assessment (Appendix A of the RDEIR) and RDEIR, and are briefly summarized below:

1. Chaparral nolina: This species was recorded on the project site during the 2016 focused plant surveys. Mitigation Measure BIO-MM2 included in the Updated Biological Assessment outlines mitigation for unavoidable impacts to chaparral nolina through translocation and seed collection with propagation to an on-site or off-site preserved property acceptable to the City. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-MM3 preserves 10 acres supporting chaparral nolina.

2. White rabbit tobacco: See Response to Comment 3-2, above. It can be confidently concluded that this species does not current occur on the project site.

3. California silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), and Dulzura pocket mouse (Chaetodipus californicus femoralis): Although these three species are ranked on CNDDB as S3 species and are therefore not considered “imperiled” or “endangered”, the above measure recommended by the Department was included as Mitigation Measure BIO-MM14 in the Update Biological Assessment. The pre-construction surveys prior to vegetation clearing and grubbing will reduce potential impacts to these species, if present.

4. San Bernardino ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus ssp. modestus and ssp. similis): This species is a CNDDB S2? species, which is considered more than vulnerable but not imperiled with certainty. This species, if present, would be expected to occur in the Riparian/Riverine areas of the project site.

Although approximately 55% of Riparian/Riverine areas would be impacted by the proposed project, City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-45

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
impacts to this species are not expected to appreciably affect overall population size or range of this species. Mitigation Measure BIO-MM14 would require a pre-construction survey to be conducted prior to clearing and grubbing of vegetation.

5. Coast patch-nosed snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea): This species is a CNDDB S2S3 species, which is considered between vulnerable and imperiled. This species, if present, would be expected to occupy the scrub and chaparral habitats on the project site. Although the project proposes impacts to suitable scrub and chaparral habitats, large tracts of suitable habitat will remain in the project vicinity and therefore impacts to this species are not expected to appreciably affect the overall population or range of this species. Mitigation Measure BIO-MM14 would require a preconstruction survey to be conducted prior to clearing and grubbing of vegetation.

The Updated Biological Assessment (Appendix A of the RDEIR) and RDEIR include Mitigation Measures BIOMM3 and BIO-MM4 (see above) to ensure avoided portions of the project site are not developed in the future.

Response to Comment 3-6. State and federal regulatory jurisdictional areas were reevaluated in 2016 and the results are detailed in the report, “An Updated Jurisdictional Delineation for TTM 36544, AKA Skyline Heights Project, City of Corona, Riverside County, California” (Appendix A of the RDEIR) and summarized in the “Updated Biological Assessment” (Appendix A of the RDEIR). The Updated Biological Assessment report and RDEIR include the following mitigation measure to reduce impacts to a less than significant level:

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM10. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, to mitigate for the loss of

10.07 acres of streambed and wetlands due to project construction, project Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (via issuance and implementation of a Streambed Alteration Agreement, Section 1600) to replace affected streambed at not less than a 2:1 basis, as specified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, through a combination of offsite acquisition and preservation, participation in an approved mitigation bank, and/or on or offsite creation, enhancement, or reestablishment of the streambed. The exact ratio shall be based on a functions and values assessment.

The project design considered minimizing impacts to drainages, and Alternative designs are discussed in Section 8 of the Updated Biological Assessment. Impacts to both drainage Features 1 and 3 are required to create a secondary access point. Complete avoidance of these drainage features would remove the efficient looped water system within the Project and risk in fire situations would be increased. To avoid impacts to the features and still maintain two access points, development would be limited to the northern third of the project site. If this alternative is advanced, the project would not generate enough revenue to pay for the needed infrastructure and other improvements and it is likely that the southern two thirds of the project site would be subdivided and sold to produce revenue to offset development costs. See Response to Comment 3- 3 above for additional discussion.

Response to Comment 3-7. An initial DBESP was prepared for the project and is being revised based on previous comments received from the CDFW and USFWS and from the updated focused botanical surveys between April and August 2016. The DBESP is not required to be completed at the same time as the EIR, but City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-46
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
is required prior to the issuance of any regulatory permits issued by CDFW and USFWS. . A revised DBESP has been prepared and this will be submitted by the City of Corona to CDFW and USFWS for processing.

Response to Comment 3-8. This comment provides a general conclusion regarding the comments raised in this letter. Responses to the comments contained in this letter are provided above in Responses to Comments 3-1 through 3-7.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-47

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Juan C. Perez, P.E., T.E.

Director of Transportation and
Land Management
January 19, 2016
Jason Moquin
City of Corona

TRANSPORTATION AND

LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Transportation Department
Community Development Department
400 South Vicentia Avenue
Corona, CA 92882-2187
RE: Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Skyline Heights Project
Dear Mr. Moquin:

Patricia Romo, P.E.

Assistant Director of Transportation
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Availability (NOA) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Corona's Skyline Heights Project. The proposed project is located south of the planned extension of Foothill Parkway, generally west of Trudy Way, and generally east of Paseo Grande. The project consists of a general plan amendment that will change the existing land use from rural residential designation to low density residential and open space designations. A tentative tract map is also proposed that will subdivide the area into 292 single family residential lots. The Riverside County Transportation Department (County) provides the following comment on the DEIR.

The DEIR and project traffic study indicate that the planned extension of Foothill Parkway from Trudy Way to Paseo Grande is expected to be completed by 2017, however, not a required improvement of the project. The project is located within a high fire area, therefore secondary access should be required for all lots.

In reviewing the tentative Tract Map 36544, lots 248 through 292 only have one access for ingress and egress via Foothill Parkway. The County recommends that City place a condition on the tentative tract map requiring Foothill Parkway to be extended to Paseo Grande before occupancy permits are issued for lots 248 through 292.
4080 Lemon Street, 8'h Floor · Riverside, CA 92501 · (951) 955-6740 P.O. Box I 090 · Riverside, CA 92502-1090 · FAX (951) 955-3198 Jason Moquin
January 19, 2016

Page 2 ends

Thank you again for the opportunity to review the NOA. Please contact me at (951) 955-2016 with questions or comments.

Sincerely,
Russell Williams
Development Review Manager
RUW:KKT:rg
cc: Juan C. Perez, Director of Transportation and Land Management Patricia Ramo, Assistant Director of Transportation
4080 Lemon Street, 8'" Floor · Riverside, CA 9250 I · (951) 955-6740 P.O. Box I 090 · Riverside, CA 92502-I 090 · FAX (95I) 955-3I98

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 4
County of Riverside
Transportation and Land Management Department
Russell Williams, Development Review Manager
4080 Lemon Street, 8th floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Response to Letter 4
Response to Comment 4-1. This first paragraph of this comment provides a general introduction regarding the comments raised in this letter. With regard to the second paragraph, specifically the comment that secondary access should be provided for all lots and the recommendation that the City place a condition on the tentative tract map requiring Foothill Parkway to be extended to Paseo Grande before occupancy permits are issued for project lots 248 and 292, this comment and recommendation are noted. As indicated on page

4.M-34 of the Draft EIR, it is anticipated that the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension (a separate project already under construction which and anticipated for completion in late 2016 or in early 2017) would be completed prior to the initiation of project construction. It is worth mentioning that since the preparation of the Draft EIR, the construction of Foothill Parkway has been completed and the roadway is currently operational, ahead of the completion date anticipated in the Draft EIR. Furthermore, as indicated on page

4.L-21, as required by Mitigation Measure PS-1, the project shall comply with City of Corona Municipal Code and CFD requirements, including those related to emergency access, such that adequate emergency access would be provided. Finally, as indicated on page 4.M-35 of the Draft EIR, the project site plan would be subject to review and approval by the City’s Department of Public Works and Fire Department to ensure adequate emergency access such that the emergency access impact of the project would be less than significant.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-50
Date: December 9, 2015
City of Corona
Attention: Jason Moquin
Community Development Department
400 South Vicentia Avenue
Corona, CA 92882
RE: Skyline Heights Project Environmental Impact Report (GPA13-003, CZ13-002, Annexation 117; TTM36544)
To Mr. Jason Moquin,
Thank you for allowing the Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District to comment on the proposed Skyline Heights Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Staff has reviewed the document and has the following comment:
 The proposed project location is within the Cleveland National Forest. The Cleveland National Forest has several established hiking paths and trails located in or around the project area. The project should identify, analyze, and preserve these trails and its connections to the adjacent developed communities.

The Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District is available for any discussion or clarifications.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (951) 955-6998 or email me at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Paul Rull
Parks Planner

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 5
Riverside County
Regional Park and Open-Space District
Paul Rull, Parks Planner
4600 Crestmore Road
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Response to Letter 5
Response to Comment 5-1. The Draft EIR addressed project impacts on trails within the CNF in Section 4.I, Land Use and Planning. As indicated on pages 4.I-9 and 4.I-15, the four U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service parcels within the annexation area, and the open space parcel at the south edge of the annexation area, would be maintained as permanent open space which would allow continued access to Skyline Drive which serves as trail access to and within the CNF. As indicated on page 4.I-12 and in Figures 4.I-1 and 4.I-2, the project would not alter Skyline Trail, the only designated public trail within or adjacent to the annexation area, and would not alter the access point to that trail along Foothill Parkway. Several undesignated trails traverse the project site and would be impacted by the project; however, these trails occur on private property and are not dedicated for public access by any legal instrument such as a public access easement. As such, the Draft EIR identified and addressed project impacts to designated public trails within the CNF, and the project would result in a less than significant impact to these trails.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-52
1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 6:25 PM
To: David Crook; Mike Byer ([email protected]) Subject: FW: Comments on DEIR for Skyline Heights Project by Riverside-San Bernardi no CNPS
Attachments: 2016May1_SkylineHeightsDEIRcommentsFMR2.pdf ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 5:08 PM
To: Terri Manuel
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; karin_cleary‐ [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Comments on DEIR for Skyline Heights Project by Riverside‐San Bernardi no CNPS Dear Terri,
The Riverside‐San Bernardino Chapter of the California Native Plant Society hereby submits the attached comment letter on the Skyline Heights DEIR. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Please send further notices to our chapter at the address at the top of the letter.

Please let us know that this email and document were received today.

Sincerely,
Kate Kramer
Fred Roberts
____________________________________________________________ Newsmax
What the Bible Says About Money (Fascinating)
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/5727ec338261e6c32249dst04vuc 1 Riverside-San Bernardino Chapter
www.riverside-sanbernardino.cnps.org
4477 Picacho Drive, Riverside, CA 92507
DATE: May 1, 2016
TO: Terri Manuel, Planning Manager ([email protected]) RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: SKYLINE HEIGHTS PROJECT The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a non-profit volunteer organization dedicated to the conservation and preservation of California’s native flora (www.CNPS.org). The Riverside/San Bernardino Counties Chapter of CNPS works to increase the public awareness of the significance of native plants and to preserve the native vegetation of Riverside and southwestern San Bernardino Counties. The following comments are submitted for the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for the SKYLINE HEIGHTS PROJECT alluded to in Public Notice for ANNEX-117-GP13-003-CZ13-002-TTM-36544-EIR.

In our review we have focused on Appendix D, the Biological Resources Assessment and other changes in the land form that would have severe consequences to sensitive native plant populations and sensitive plant communities. Our chapter has botanists and ecologists with many years of education and experience in examining rare plants, vegetation communities, and the flora of the Santa Ana Mountains. One of the authors of this letter has published checklists of the vascular plants for western Riverside and Orange counties (Roberts et al 2004, Roberts 2008) and is a co-author of the highly regarded Wildflowers of Orange County and the Santa Ana Mountains (Allen & Roberts 2013).

In general, we have found the surveys for sensitive plants and communities, the analysis of the projects impacts to them, and the findings to be inadequate. For example, it is possible that the consultants did not know the difference between the common Whipple’s yucca (Hesperoyucca whipplei) and the rare Chaparral nolina (Nolina cismontana), California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B.2) and therefore missed many hundreds of plants over at least a 10- acre portion of the project site. In addition, the document fails to recognize the presence of extensive Riversidean Alluvial Fan Scrub vegetation, also known as the Lepidospartum squamatum Alliance (rank S3G3). The EIR does not sufficiently map or estimate the presence of Quecus agrifolia or estimate the damage to its habitat contained within the 2 Quercus agrifolia woodland alliance and Quercus berberidifolia or Quercus berberidifoliaAdenostoma fasciluatum shrubland alliances. Furthermore, their surveys for rare plants were inadequate. Some of their work may have been hampered by the clearing (blading?) of two of the major areas of clay substrate within the project site. The clay areas were scraped clean between 2005 and 2006. This can be seen by looking at the sequence of aerial photos available in Google Earth from before 2005 through 2016. These areas are now recovering from the damage.

Rare Vegetation and Plants that Occur on the Project Site:

The botanical surveys were conducted in 2013, overall a dry year throughout California and the second year of what would become one of the states more significant droughts. The document does not appear to take the impact of the drought on the vegetation and flora of of the project site under consideration. It should be plainly stated that due to the dry conditions, the list of species observed is almost certainly incomplete. The descriptions of the vegetation communities on site also appear to be either overly simplified or poor fits to the actual vegetation on site. For example, many important and frequently occurring species like toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), holly-leaved red berry (Rhamnus ilicifolia), holly-leaved cherry (Prunus ilicifolia), Ramona lilac (Ceanothus tomentosus), and California scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia) are not mentioned while much less abundant plants like California coffee berry (Frangula californica) are, giving the reader a different impression of the site than the reality. One of the more significant omissions is nolina scrub, dominated by chaparral nolina. A plant community dominated by a CRPR ranked sensitive species is by default a sensitive community.

Chaparral Nolina, Nolina cismontana, Forest Service sensitive species and CRPR 1B.2 species: Chaparral nolina was included as part of the taxon Nolina parryii prior to 1995 (Hess & Dice 1995). Hess & Dice 1995 noted that the plant is threatened by development.

Its range extends from Ventura to San Diego County with the principal populations found in the northern Santa Ana Mountains. The authors of the Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd edition (MCV2, Sawyer et al. 2009) were not aware of this extensive population of N. cismontana in the Santa Ana Mountains and that it is often a dominant species, often referred to in neighboring Orange County as nolina scrub. Regardless of being identified in the manual or not, it is a true vegetation alliance and the abundance of chaparral nolina within it would make it difficult to accurately place this vegetation within other alliances.

Chaparral nolina appears to be co-dominant in the shrub layer in many areas with Adenostoma fasciculatum, Ceanothus tomentosus and Salvia mellifera, or with Ceanothus crassifolius, Cercocarpus betuloides, Fraxinus dipetala, Quercus berberidifolia, Heteromeles arbutifolia and other chaparral shrubs, depending on the slope aspect inside an approximately 10 acre area (see Appendix with map and photos). The extent of the population needs to be carefully surveyed because most of it is currently slated for grading. 3 Chaparral nolina has only recently been found to occur in Riverside County and is overall scarce. It was not included in Roberts et al. (2004) due to a lack of a known population a decade ago and was not considered for the MSHCP. However, the population within the project site is possibly the largest in Riverside County. That in combination with its CRPR 1B.2 ranking makes this a significant conservation concern.

In the appendix to this letter, we include an aerial map of locations and photos to document the extensive population of the Chaparral Nolina within the project site.

With our knowledge of the general area, we find it unlikely that the only sensitive plant within the project site is Coulter’s matillija poppy (Romneya coulteri), as discussed in the document. We already know that chaparral nolina was missed and it is a fairly large and showy sensitive plant. It does not appear on the species list and is considered of “low potential” to occur by the preparers of the document. That alone calls in to question how many more obscure and difficult to locate sensitive species were not seen or addressed. At the very least, members have recently observed Fish’s milkwort (Polygala corunata ssp. fishae), a CRPR 4.3 plant, on the site without conducting extensive surveys. Intermediate mariposa lily (Calochortus weedii var. intermedius), CRPR 1B.2 is known from habitat adjacent to the site on three sides and there is suitable habitat over much of the project area. It almost certainly occurs within the project area. We recommend that additional rare plant surveys be conducted at the appropriate time of year. We also suggest adding a table to the document that allows reviewers to see just which species are being considered and a brief discussion of the habitat requirements and reasoning for potential occurrence estimates.

Riversidean Alluvial Fan Scrub (RAFS) also known as the Lepidospartum squamatum shrubland alliance, S3G3: Alluvial Scrub vegetation types occur on the site within outwash fans, stream terraces, and within the sandy, cobbly, rocky wash soils of the major drainages (primarily drainage 3, page 56 of Appendix D). Alluvial scrub occurs on the well-drained substrates of alluvial fans and riverine/stream deposits and is well adapted to occasional flood and scour events (Buck-Diaz et al. 2011, Hanes et al. 1989). The approximately 6 acres of the main, unnamed drainage 3 that flows toward the basin at Mangular Ave. and W.

Chase Drive supports a rare type of alluvial scrub vegetation known as Riversidean Alluvial Fan Scrub [see Western Riverside County MSHCP and vegetation mapping project (Evens & Klein 2006, Klein & Evens 2006)] and which is classified in the MCV2 within the Lepidospartum squamatum Alliance. The majority of this vegetation is on the project property, but a portion is on adjacent property to the south. On the site, the alliance contains Lepidospartum squamatum (>5% cover) in association with species such as Eriogonum fasciculatum var. foliolosum, Acmispon glaber var. glaber, Hesperoyucca whipplei, Salvia mellifera, Malosma laurina, Romneya coulteri, Artemisia californica, and scattered Platanus racemosa. This vegetation type intergrades Quercus agrifolia oak woodland and a variety of sage scrub and species rich chaparral alliances that occupy the adjacent slopes and upper terraces of the wash. Riversidean Alluvial Fan Scrub is underrepresented within conserved lands in western Riverside County. Additional 4 Riversidean is needed to meet the goals of the plan. The document should provide a discussion for the level of conservation currently attained by the MSHCP and how loss or conservation of the Riversidean Alluvial Fan Scrub within the project area would impact the MSHCP conservation effort.

Alluvial Scrub vegetation in general is severely threatened by residential and other development, and by altered stream flows. There are many practical and conservation reasons to avoid developing over Lepidospartum squamatum scrub. The development would destroy the flows and disturbance regime in the upper drainage and pipe water toward the habitat at the eastern end of the site.

Recent climate change vulnerability assessments undertaken by the US Forest Service in collaboration partners (other agencies, practitioners, and academics), and facilitated by consultants from EcoAdapt, have shown that Alluvial Scrub plant communities are highly vulnerable to climate change, water diversions, and development ( see the January 2016 version of the assessment at:
http://ecoadapt.org/data/documents/SoCal_VASummary_AlluvialScrub_FINAL.pdf, http://ecoadapt.org/data/documents/EcoAdapt_SoCal_AdaptationStrategiesTable_AlluvialS crub.pdf, and
http://ecoadapt.org/data/documents/SoCal_VAASBrief_AlluvialScrub_January2016_smallre s.pdf). For more information about the Southern California Climate Adaptation Project and links to documents on the various stressors that may adversely affect Alluvial Scrub vegetation, see: http://ecoadapt.org/programs/adaptation-consultations/socal.

The vegetation map provided by the consultants and by others were far too generalized to reveal the existence of local alluvial scrub habitats that are dependent on natural fluvial processes for their continued existence. There is no analysis of how interruption of flows and piping of flows within the major unnamed drainage are expected to affect the downstream habitat that supports rare vegetation alliances such as Riversidean Alluvial Fan Scrub/Lepidospartum squamatum scrub and the particular chaparral alliances that occur on alluvial terraces, all of which support stands of the rare Culter’s Matillija Poppy (Romneya coulteri).

Clay Soils and Potential Rare Plant Habitat: The larger clay-soil areas that currently support grasslands with Stipa pulchra, Stipa lepida and associated forbs are not mapped or analyzed sufficiently as having potential to support rare plant species. These are precisely the areas that would likely support some of the rare plants missed in the most recent plant surveys (including the Intermediate mariposa lily) but which were found by other consultants in the past. The draught and slow recovery from the land scraping treatment on the clay soil areas may have resulted in few and harder to detect rare plants. 5 Other Issues:

Mitigating oak removals by planting Quercus agrifolia at a rate of 1:1 in the landscaped areas does not come close to mitigating for the loss of wildlife habitat provided by this tree.

Natural oak populations are suffering from a host of diseases and this sort of destruction and ornamental planting is contrary to encouraging sustainable populations of oaks and their associated species.

The presentation of Project Alternatives is inadequate. The project alternatives presented are not sufficiently detailed. There needs to be a different project alternative that provides a larger buffer between the development and the National Forest and that avoids the Nolina cismontana area, direct and indirect impacts to Riversidean Alluvial Fan Scrub, and the major clay soil areas that are known to support rare plants and native grassland. A streamlined development alternative that avoids these habitats would also likely have more of a buffer between the National Forest lands and decrease the ignition sources from the new development compared to the alternatives provided. A different alternative that preserves drainage 3 and the clay ridge areas (see appendix) would also allow additional access to a recreational trail system up the unnamed drainage and beyond, linking to other important and well used trails.

There are National Forest lands in the zone of influence of this project. There is not sufficient analysis of the effects of the project to National Forest lands and natural resources. For example, it is well known that ignition frequency increases in the wildland urban interface and along roads. This project inserts development far into prime chaparral and riparian habitats. Analyses of the cumulative impacts on the value of the existing habitat and watershed protection on Federal lands are wanting. Furthermore, because the surveys did not recognize the existence of an extensive population of Nolina cismontana over at least 10 acres, at least 0.75 acres of native grassland habitat, and over 5 acres of Lepidospartum squamatum scrub, which indeed do exist, the findings regarding impact to sensitive plants and plant communities are mistaken, unsupported, and will need to be reevaluated.

Fuel Modification: Appendix G-2 Fuel Modification. Sec 1:5, Sec 1:6 figures. The 100 feet shown BEYOND property boundaries of pads to be managed by HOA. This will eliminate even more habitat than shown in the footprint of the grading. The fuel management area should not be considered part of open space. This creates issues. The fuel modification zones should be in the footprint of the development—part of properties.

The natural population of Romneya coulteri needs to be protected from the influx of genes from cultivated selections of the plant. This is a sensitive, rare plant. Cultivars of this plant (e.g. ‘White Could’) should not be used in the fuel modification zone or landscaping. Plants are bee pollinated and the bees travel far. Just use plants from local seed source as recommended for outer zones but elsewhere too. The best plants to be used in fuel mod zone are the species native to this area that have low fuel, green leaves, and low ignition 6 potential such as Heteromeles arbutifolia, Quercus berberidifolia, Ceanothus tomentosus, Hesperoyucca whipplei, Rhus ovata, Rhamnus illicifolia, Prunus illicifolia, Quercus agrifolia, Platanus racemosa, Fraxinus dipetala, Cercocarpus betuloides. The low fuel, natural species from the adjacent habitat are the best to use in the dry fuel mod zone! These will look best and grow well.

AVOID Baccharis pilularis and Atriplex canescens, which will invade the site and become too dense.

The mitigation proposed for loss of 6.17 acres of streambed. Wetlands are becoming very difficult to find. There needs to be more avoidance of these areas. A 1:1 replacement basis is also not sustainable and a 3:1 basis should be adopted.

Sincerely,
Fred M. Roberts, Jr.

Rare Plant Chair, Riverside/San Bernardino Chapter, CNPS Kate Kramer
Conservation Co-chair, Riverside/San Bernardino Chapter, CNPS 7 Bibliography
Allen, R. L., and F. M. Roberts, Jr. 2013. Wildflowers of Orange County and the Santa Ana Mountains.

Laguna Wilderness Press, Laguna, CA.

Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors. 2012.

The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California. 2nd edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Buck-Diaz, J., J. M. Evens, and A. M. Montalvo. 2011. Alluvial Scrub Vegetation of Southern California, A Focus on the Santa Ana River Watershed In Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, California. Report to USDA Forest Service, Grant Program, National Fire Plan Restoration/Rehabilitation of Burned Areas. Available online:
http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/pdf/alluvial_scrub-diaz_evans2011.pdf.

Evens, J. M., and A. N. Klein. 2006. A new model for conservation planning: vegetation mapping in western Riverside County. Madroño 34(2):11-18.

Hanes, T., R. Friesen, and K. Keane. 1989. Alluvial scrub vegetation in coastal southern California.

USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-110:187-193.

Hess, W. J. and J. C. Dice. 1995. Nolina cismontana (Nolinaceae), a New Species Name for an Old Taxon. Novon 5(2): 162-164.

Klein, A., and J. Evens. 2006. Vegetation Alliances of Western Riverside County, California. Report prepared for California Department of Fish and Game. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Available on line:
http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/pdf/WRIV_Vegetation_CNPSFinalReport_April2006.pdf.

Roberts, F. M., Jr. 2008. The Vascular Plants of Orange County, California: An Annotated Checklist. F.

M. Roberts Publications, San Luis Rey, CA.

Roberts, F. M., Jr., S. D. White, A. C. Sanders, D. E. Bramlet, and S. Boyd. 2004. The Vascular Plants of Western Riverside County, California: An Annotated Checklist. F. M. Roberts Publications, San Luis Rey, CA.

Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. 2nd edition.

California Native Plant Society Press, Sacramento, CA.
8 Appendix: Photos to document locations of rare plants and rare communities. There are also herbarium specimens of the rare plants at UCR Herbarium.

All photos taken on April 20-26, 2016.

The red shape on left is an approximately 10-acre area within which extensive stands of the Chaparral Nolina were found.

The red shape on the right is where there is over 6 acres of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Scrub.

The pink pin is one location of Polygala cornuta var. fishiae.

The yellow pins mark extensive areas of clay soil and where there are Stipa pulchra (at 2) or Stipa lepida (at 1) grasslands.
9 Nolina cismontana
Photos from project of the 10 acres of habitat from top of Clay ridge 1 and from drainage to north.

Population of Chaparral Nolina along Clay ridge 1.
10 South facing slope along next ridge to north of Clay ridge 1-- the “north ridge” showing Nolina.

North facing slope on next ridge to south of Clay ridge 1 also has extensive patches of Nolina scatted over the very steep slopes of the canyon.
11 The Nolina population extends all along the “north ridge” to the canyon bottom. 12 Quercus agrifolia Woodland Alliance
Coast live oak woodland (woodland has > 10 % tree cover) Characteristic Species
Quercus agrifolia is dominant or co-dominant in the tree canopy with Fraxinus dipetala. Understory with Heteromeles arbutifolia, Quercus berberidifolia. Rhamnus illicifolia, Toxicodendron diversilobum and shrubs from the RAFS.

Membership Rules
• Quercus agrifolia > 50% relative cover in the tree canopy; if Umbellularia californica trees present, then < 33% relative cover in the tree canopy (Keeler-Wolf et al. 2003a, Evens and San. 2004, Keeler-Wolf and Evens 2006).
• Quercus agrifolia > 60% relative cover in the tree canopy (Evens and San 2005, Klein and Evens 2005).

Habitats
Alluvial terraces, canyon bottoms, stream banks, slopes, flats. Soils are deep, sandy or loamy with high organic matter. Quercus agrifolia Oak Woodland and Chaparral with abundant QUAG There is more oak woodland along the alluvial terraces than mapped by the consulting team, including the woodland in center of this photo along the drainage on the south side of Clay ridge 1 (see map at beginning of appendix). Many of the tributaries to Drainage 3 have oaks and would be impacted. The extent of damage to oaks needs to be reevaluated. 13 Oak Woodland. Three is also Scrub oak chaparral (Quercus berberidifolia alliance), Scrub oak-chamise chaparral (Quercus berberidifolia-Adenostoma fasciculatum alliance) and toyon chaparral (Heteromeles argutifolia alliance) with scattered Quercus agrifolia along the north facing slopes of drainages between stands of oak woodland. 14 Lepidospartum squamatum Shrubland Alliance (> 6 acres) Scale broom scrub
Characteristic Species
Lepidospartum squamatum is dominant, co-dominant, or conspicuous in the shrub canopy with Artemisia californica, Eriodictyon crassifolium, Eriogonum fasciculatum var. foliolosum, Hesperoyucca whipplei, Acmispon glaber var. glaber, Malosma laurina, Rhus ovata, Rhus trilobata and Toxicodendron diversilobum. Emergent trees or tall shrubs are present at low cover, including Cercocarpus betuloides, Platanus racemosa and Sambucus nigra. Holland called this Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub and alluvial fan chaparral.

Membership Rules (MCV2)
Lepidospartum squamatum > 1% cover in alluvial environments. Habitats intermittently or rarely flooded, low-gradient alluvial deposits along streams, washes and fans. The USFWS Wetland Inventory (1996 national list) recognizes Lepidospartum squamatum as a NI plant.

Scale broom scrub within unnamed drainage 3 within project site. Additional photos available upon request.
15 Ridgeline – Clay area 1, approximately 1 acre (Clay area 2 is 0.75 acres and contains Stipa pulchra grassland).

There is over an acre of native needlegrass grassland dominated by Stipa lepida on clay soils especially along ridges that were previously scraped. Associated with Salvia mellifera, Ceanothus tomentosus, Adenostoma fasciculatum.

Nassella (Stipa) lepida Provisional Herbaceous Alliance (MCV2)
Foothill needle grass grassland
State rarity S3?, Global rarity G3?
Characteristic Species
Stipa (Nassella) lepida is dominant in the herbaceous layer Habitats
Soils with high clay content (when rolled, soil from this location forms stiff pencil), derived from mudstone, shale, sandstone substrates.

Holland: Valley needlegrass grassland
16 Polygala cornuta var. fishiae- photo at Polygala point on map at bottom of clay ridge 1. 17 Species missing from Plant Table that are significant at the site Native Plants Observed not on species list
Bloomeria crocea
Brickiella californica
Calistegia macrostegia
Ceanothus crassifolius
Ceanothus tomentosus
Cercocarpus betuloides
Encelia farinosa
Fraxinus dipetala
Helianthus gracilentus
Keckiella antirrhiniodes
Keckiella cordifolia
Lepidospartum squamatum
Nolina cismontana
Phacelia distans
Phacelia minor
Polygala cornuta var. fishiae
Pseudognaphalium californicum
Prunus illicifolia
Rhamnus illicifolia
Solanum xanti
Stipa pulchra
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 6
California Native Plant Society
Riverside-San Bernardino Chapter
4477 Picacho Drive
Riverside, CA 92507
Response to Letter 6
Response to Comment 6-1. This comment provides a general introduction regarding the comments raised in this letter. Responses to the comments contained in this letter are provided below in Responses to Comments 6-2 through 6-13.

Response to Comment 6-2. This comment provides a general introduction regarding the CNPS and the comments raised in this letter. Responses to the comments contained in this letter are provided below in Responses to Comments 6-3 through 6-13.

Response to Comment 6-3. The Draft EIR addressed project impacts on sensitive native plant populations and sensitive plant communities in Section 4.C, Biological Resources, with supporting data provided in Appendix D, Biological Resources Assessment, Surveys, and Jurisdictional Delineation, while the RDEIR addressed these resources in Section 4.C, with supporting analysis and documentation provided in the Updated Biological Resources Assessment included as Appendix A. As indicated on page 4.C-23 through 4-C28 of the Draft EIR, and of pages 4.C-43 through 4.C-46 of the RDEIR, the project would result in less than significant impacts on sensitive native plant species with implementation of the proposed project design features and prescribed mitigation measures. As indicated on Draft EIR pages 4.C-28 and 4.C-29, and on pages 4.C-50 through 4.C-55 of the RDEIR, the project would result in less than significant impacts on riparian habitat (including, plant communities in riparian and woodland habitats, upland, and unvegetated/altered habitats) with implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures. As indicated on Draft EIR pages 4.C-29 through 4.C-33, and on pages 4.C-56 through 4.C-59 of the RDEIR, the project would result in less than significant impacts to federally protected wetlands, and less than significant impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and riparian scrub and streambeds with compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures. Therefore, the project would not have “severe consequences” to sensitive native plant populations and sensitive plant communities.

Response to Comment 6-4. Updated focused botanical surveys were conducted between April and August 2016, which followed adequate rainfall that provided favorable conditions for annual species that were not observed in past years. In addition to an updated botanical census, the vegetation communities on the project site were also remapped. Field biologists reported a good blooming season in the project site and documented 145 additional botanical species during surveys. The following special-status species were observed during the surveys: 20 Fish’s milkwort (Polygala cornuta var. fishiae), 261 paniculate tarplant (Deinandra paniculata), 455 intermediate mariposa lily, 691 Coulter’s matilija poppy, and ± 5,343 chaparral nolina. The process for determining the number of chaparral nolina on the project site is detailed in Section

4.5.2 of the Updated Biological Assessment (Appendix A of the RDEIR; Appendix D to this EIR).Remapping of habitat communities or assemblages was conducted to more fully address the entire list of species present City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-71

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
and the classifications categorized down to the dominant and subdominant species where applicable.

Alluvial fan sage scrub (AFSS) was observed and has been included in updated figures. The Updated Biological Assessment (Appendix A of the RDEIR) identifies and analyzes the project related impacts to this community.

The location and extent of Quercus agrifolia woodland alliance (coast live oak woodland) and Quercus berberidifolia (scrub oak chaparral) or Quercus berberidifolia Adenostoma fasciculatum shrubland alliances (scrub oak – chamise chaparral) were identified and remapped in the Updated Biological Assessment (Appendix A of the RDEIR) and the Final EIR. Impacts are calculated at 7.59 acres of coast live oak woodland,

6.19 acres of scrub oak chaparral, and 11.71 aces of scrub oak-chamise chaparral (see Table 8 in the Updated Biological Resources Assessment). Tree count surveys and oak tree impacts will also be addressed at the local level with the City of Corona’s General Plan Policy 10.10.5, which requires conservation of oak tree resources in the City and where appropriate within the MSHCP Riparian/Riverine mitigation and CDFW streambed mitigation on a no net loss basis. The EIR and Updated Biological Assessment report includes the following mitigation measure to reduce impacts of oak trees to a no net loss:

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM6. The project Applicant shall replace oak trees impacted by the project at a ratio consistent with the City of Corona oak tree conservancy policy (General Plan Policy 10.10.5), at no less than a 2:1 ratio. Replacement trees shall be located in undeveloped natural areas suitable to support these trees or in onsite mitigation areas where possible. If spacing requirements limit the number of replacement trees in these areas additional plantings may be located in landscaped areas as close to open space as feasible. All replacement trees shall be planted prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.

Botanical surveys conducted between April and August in 2016 included three areas of clay substrate.

Additional time was spent in these areas to ensure they were adequately surveyed.

Response to Comment 6-5. Reported surveys, the results of which were included in the original Draft EIR, were conducted in drought years and it is likely that some species did not germinate or had a reduced blooming period, which would have affected the species observed and mapped. Additional focused botanical surveys were conducted in 2016 between April and August. Although rainfall continued to be lower than the average, rainfall for the 2015-2016 season was significantly higher than the 2012-2013 survey season. Field biologists reported a good blooming season in the project site and documented 145 additional plant species during surveys, thereby reducing the probability that species were overlooked during surveys.

The 2016 Protocol Botanical Survey conducted by L&L Environmental, Inc. and habitat remapping effort reevaluated the habitat communities and alliances in the project site and refined the designations to include dominant and sub-dominant species. The detailed habitat descriptions are found in Section 4.2 of the Updated Biological Assessment and in the recirculated Biological Resources section. While chaparral nolina was documented as occurring on the project site, the species was not considered to be sufficiently dominant in any location to be mapped as a separate vegetation community. Chaparral nolina was found as an associated species within the hoary-leaf ceanothus chaparral, scrub oak chaparral, and Eastwood manzanita chaparral communities.

Response to Comment 6-6. As stated above in Response to Comment 6-4, L&L Environmental, Inc.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-72
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
conducted an updated focused botanical survey during the 2016 survey season, between April and August, to supplement previous work and provide current data. Included in the observed species during the updated surveys were the following sensitive species: 20 Fish’s milkwort, 261 paniculate tarplant, 455 intermediate mariposa lily, 691 Coulter's matilija poppy, and ± 5,343 chaparral nolina. It is believed that the special-status plant species surveys have been adequately completed.

Table 14, Sensitive Species Probability Table, in the Updated Biological Assessment (Appendix A of the RDEIR; Appendix D to the Draft EIR) identifies all the special-status plant species considered during the focused botanical survey, their habitat description and distribution and the determination of probability to occur.

Response to Comment 6-7. On the project site, AFSS is located in and adjacent to drainage Features 3, 6, and 7. The project site supports approximately 10.25 acres of AFSS, of which, 3.35 acres are proposed for impacts under the proposed Project. The MSHCP proposes to conserve AFSS within Conservation and Criteria Areas, within which the project site is not located. AFSS is considered a Riparian/Riverine associated habitat.

The MSHCP baseline habitat map does not include AFSS habitat within the project site, although it is now documented from the site. Therefore, the Skyline Heights Project impacts to AFSS would not technically contribute to the loss of AFSS habitat inventory in the MSHCP Rough Step 7 analysis. Of the 10.25 acres of AFSS mapped by L&L Environmental, Inc., 6.9 acres will be preserved and will remain as open space that will be deed restricted from future development. In effect, 6.9 acres will be added to conserved AFSS within Rough Step 7 and will contribute additional acreage of AFSS in conservation not previously accounted in the total AFSS existing in the MSHCP Plan area. BIO-MM4 will conserve preserved habitat (including AFSS) and prevent additional impacts in the future. Project impacts to AFSS will be mitigated as Riparian/Riverine habitat.

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM7. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project Applicant shall provide mitigation for 10.07 acres of Riparian/Riverine impacts at a 2:1 basis, as determined through consultation with the City of Corona and wildlife agencies based on an MSHCP evaluation of functions and values analysis. The project Applicant proposes mitigation in the form of offsite mitigation with the Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District (RCRCD) or other suitable approved organization with available credits. Currently, mitigation in banks is favored to preserve large areas of habitat where it is needed to fulfill the conservation goals of the MSHCP. In the event mitigation with the RCRCD is not finalized for any reason, the project Applicant shall provide equal or greater value mitigation in one or more of the following forms: offsite acquisition and preservation, participation in an approved mitigation bank, onsite creation, offsite creation, enhancement, or reestablishment. If offsite mitigation is incorporated, the preferred choice shall be to find mitigation within or adjacent to the Santa Ana City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-73

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Watershed and in or adjacent to Corona if possible. In addition, some avoided resources shall be preserved in an open space area and deed restricted.

If onsite mitigation is proposed as an alternative, the project Applicant shall prepare a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for review and approval by local and regulatory agencies, which shall include the following components:
• Quantitative success criteria (vegetation cover and species richness); • Recommendations for soil preparation;
• A plant palette to include native species occurring on the site, such as coast live oak and Coulter’s matilija poppy;
• Planting methods;
• Irrigation and maintenance requirements; and
• A long-term mitigation maintenance and monitoring plan with remedial measures.

Areas containing AFSS in the project site have been mapped and are addressed in the Updated Biological Assessment (Appendix A of the RDEIR), which was undertaken to provide more specific vegetation mapping details. For the AFSS occurring within Mabey Canyon, there will be little to no change to the existing fluvial processes because the proposed project does not alter that drainage in any appreciable way. The project development will have the greatest impacts to Drainage Feature 3; however, much of the hydrology flows to the lower areas of Feature 3 will receive sufficient volumes during storm events to allow for maintenance of the AFSS habitat.

Response to Comment 6-8. Clay soil areas and grasslands were surveyed in the field in 2016 and evaluated for vegetation habitats characterization onsite. L&L Environmental, Inc. mapped three new areas of needlegrass grasslands, which totaled 2.33 acres. Additional time was spent in clay soils areas during the updated 2016 focused botanical surveys to ensure these areas were adequately covered for observance of sensitive botanical species. All species observed during the field surveys were included in the list of plant species observed.

Response to Comment 6-9. Coast live oak woodlands located within drainages are considered jurisdictional components and as such are included in the mitigation requirements for jurisdictional impacts.

Those oaks located outside of drainages or as scattered individual oaks are mitigated in compliance with the lead agency ordinances. The project site supports 8.62 acres of coast live oak woodland in seven (7) locations and in addition to scattered individual oak trees. The proposed project will impact 7.59 acres of coast live oak woodlands (4.46 acres of riparian habitat and 3.13 acres of upland woodlands). Prior to construction, the actual number of individual oak trees proposed for impacts will be inventoried and mitigated at a ratio consistent with the City of Corona’s oak tree conservation policy (General Plan 10.10.5), at no less than 2:1, preferably within native, avoided habitats where naturally occurring water sources are present. This typically includes areas where rainfall is likely to accumulate, for example along benches adjacent to drainages or at the toe of slopes. Where the number of mitigation trees exceeds the number that can reasonably be planted in and supported by available water within native habitats, the remaining trees may be planted within landscaped areas where there is an opportunity for these species to survive on irrigation water. This may occur at the toe of constructed slopes, downstream from water quality basins, etc., as close to open space as is reasonably feasible. Replacement of coast live oak trees is included as BIO-MM6 in the Updated Biological Assessment report (see Response to Comment 6-4 above).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-74
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The location of replacement oaks will be prioritized to the greatest extent possible along drainages or on the periphery of water features or basins created on the project site so as to maintain a more natural environment and encourage sustainable populations.

The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) will be modified to prohibit the planting of species that might negatively impact existing and newly planted oak trees, and the final landscape plans will include a broader community of oak tree alliances to reduce the potential for broad scale species loss.

Response to Comment 6-10.

Level of Detail of Alternatives Evaluated
The Draft EIR presents and evaluates alternatives to the proposed project in Chapter 5, Alternatives. With respect to the level of detail of the alternatives addressed in the Draft EIR: (1) as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d), the descriptions of the three alternatives on pages 5-13, 5-17 and 5-24 are sufficiently detailed to provide an analysis of the alternatives; and (2) as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(a), the analysis of the alternatives in Chapter 5 is sufficiently detailed to foster informed decision making and public participation; and (3) as permitted by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d), the discussion of the environmental effects of the alternatives may be in less detail than the discussion of the impacts of the proposed project.

Range of Alternatives Evaluated
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to a project which would feasibility attain most of the basic objectives of the project while avoiding or substantially lessening one or more of the significant effects of the project. Consistent with this requirement, three alternatives are evaluated in the Draft EIR, all of which include reductions in the amount of development proposed under the project. These include the No Project Alternative which is required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e), and the Reduced Density Alternative and Phase III Only Alternative which are intended to address the significant unavoidable aesthetics and visual resources impacts of the project. An alternative site location alternative was also considered in the Draft EIR but was concluded to be infeasible and thus rejected from further consideration in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1). As indicated in Sections 4.C, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR and RDEIR, and 4.I, Land Use and Planning of the Draft EIR, the project would result in less than significant impacts to both biological resources and trails with compliance with applicable regulations, implementation of the proposed project design features, and/or implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures. Therefore, there is no basis under CEQA for requiring analysis of an additional alternative that would reduce or avoid the biological resources and trails impacts of the project.

Specific Biological Issues Raised
The project alternatives were identified by the lead agency and the biological studies considered the impacts of those alternatives in the Updated Biological Assessment (Appendix A of the RDEIR). The Updated Biological Assessment indicates that ±2,667 chaparral nolina and 6.9 acres of AFSS will be avoided. The impacted AFSS will be mitigated at a minimum ratio of 2:1 (BIO-MM7) and the loss of chaparral nolina shall be mitigated through translocation and seed collection (BIO-MM2).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-75

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Complete avoidance of Feature 3 is infeasible since it would require the complete removal of the secondary access point, which would interfere with public safety. Without contiguous access providing an efficient looped water system within the project site, risk in fire situations would be increased. In addition, constructing the project without impacting the drainage would result in effectively eliminating the lower two-thirds of the project site, which would not generate enough revenue to pay for the needed infrastructure and other improvements, making the project infeasible.

The City believes that a reasonable range of alternatives have been provided to allow an informed decision by the City’s planning commission and the City Council.

Response to Comment 6-11.

Effects on National Forest Lands and Natural Resources (General) The Draft EIR addressed the potential impacts of the project on adjacent lands (including CFS lands) and associated resources throughout the document, including but not limited to: Section 4.A, Aesthetics; Section

4.C, Biological Resources, with supporting data provided in Appendix D, Biological Resources Assessment, Surveys, and Jurisdictional Delineation; Section 4.D, Cultural Resources, with supporting data provided in Appendix E, Cultural Resources Assessments; Section 4.J, Noise, with supporting data provided in Appendix I, Noise Impact Analysis; Section 4.G, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, with supporting data provided in Appendix G, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Fuel Modification Report; Section 4.H, Hydrology and Water Quality, with supporting data provided in Appendix H, Preliminary Drainage Report and Water Quality Management Plan; Section 4.L, Public Services (including police and fire); Section 4.M, Transportation, with supporting data provided in Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis; and Section 4.O, Agriculture and Forestry Resources. Furthermore, an analysis of project consistency with applicable goals and objectives of the 2005 CNF Land Management Plan (LMP) has been added in Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR, in this Final EIR. The Draft EIR provides an adequate analysis of project effects on CNF lands and associated resources.

Wildland Fire Hazard
The Draft EIR addressed the widland fire hazards associated with the project in Section 4.G, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, with supporting data provided in Appendix G, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Fuel Modification Report. As indicated on pages 4.G-15 and 4.G-16, while the project site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), the project would replace highly flammable vegetation with plants on the City’s approved list of fire-resistant species, and would implement a fuel modification plan, which would decrease rather than increase the wildland fire potential in the area. As such, the project would result in a less than significant wildland fire hazards with: adherence to applicable requirements (including with CBC Chapter 7A, Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure, and requirements related to fire access, fire flows, and number of hydrants); implementation of the proposed project design features (including the fuel modification plan); and implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures (including CFD review and approval of the site plan, fuel modification plan, and project design features, and payment of the required “Fire Facilities Fund” fees).

Effects on National Forest Lands and Resources (Biological) City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-76
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The Updated Biological Assessment (Appendix A of the RDEIR) included an analysis of potential impacts to National Forest lands and resources in Sections 4.6.2, 5.1.3, 6.1.3 and 6.2.8. Urban and Wildlands interface measures are discussed in Section 9.5 of the Updated Biological Assessment (Appendix A of the RDEIR), minimize edge effects to National Forest Lands. The risk of fire caused by the occupation of the Skyline development is not expected to rise above the level currently assessed as a result of existing home sites and foot traffic along trails. Indirect impacts on the National Forest will be reduced through compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements, including Best Management Practices to maintain water quality; using project lighting that not intrude into open space areas; the use of selective fencing control entry to the National Forest; the control of invasive non-native species.

Updated focused botanical surveys and habitat mapping effort were conducted between April and August in 2016 and is documented in the Updated Biological Assessment report (Appendix A of the RDEIR) and the RDEIR. The surveys identified the presence of ± 5,343 chaparral nolina, 2.33 acres of needlegrass grassland, and 10.25 acres of AFSS on the project site. Impacts to sensitive plants and plant communities were reevaluated relative to the new results and are detailed in Section 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 6.2.1 and 6.2.3 of the Updated Biological Assessment (Appendix A of the RDEIR).

Response to Comment 6-12.

Spatial Extent of Fuel Management Area
The Draft EIR addresses the biological resources impacts of the project in Section 4.C, Biological Resources, with supporting data provided in Appendix D, Biological Resources Assessments, surveys, and Jurisdictional Delineation, while the RDEIR addressed these resources in Section 4.C, with supporting analysis and documentation provided in the Updated Biological Resources Assessment included as Appendix A. As indicated on page 4.C-19 of the Draft EIR and on page 4.C-39 of the RDEIR, the biological surveys in support of the biological resources analysis, and the analysis of project impacts on biological resources in Draft EIR Section 4.C and Appendix D and RDEIR Section 4.C and Appendix A, assume that the “Impact Area” shown in Figures 4.C-2 through 4.C-6 would be disturbed under the project. This “Impact Area” includes the proposed fuel modification zone shown in Figures 4.G-1A and 4.G-1B in Section 4.I, Land Use and Planning). Therefore, rather than the analysis assuming that the fuel modification zone is part of the surrounding open space area and would not be disturbed, the analysis assumes it would be part of the disturbed area (e.g., “Impact Area”) or development footprint, and attributes biological resources impacts to it as part of the greater project.

Selection of Plan Species for Fuel Modification Zone
The impact calculations considered by L&L Environmental, Inc. and evaluated in the EIR include the fuel management impacts plus a buffer of an additional 10 feet around the entire development to ensure maximum impacts were considered.

The Biological Resources section of the EIR was recirculated as part of the RDEIR in order to better assess the project impacts. The following mitigation measure was added in the Updated Biological Assessment (Appendix A of the RDEIR) and the EIR to address potential impacts from the project design.

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
matilija poppy. Additional non-native plants to be avoided in any onsite mitigation or landscaping include coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) and fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens). To ensure these non-native plants are not used in landscaping within the project site, the project Applicant shall include a list of plant species to avoid within the CC&Rs for the development. The project applicant shall also develop and distribute a suitable homeowner education package to residents / new owners covering the species to avoid.

The City of Corona and County of Riverside have requirements for fuel modification zones.

Where possible and appropriate for the species, the locally derived plantings of the species recommended by the CNPS will be included in the fuel modification zone.

The recommendation to avoid Baccharis pilularis and Atriplex canescens is incorporated into Mitigation Measure BIO-MM5, which includes these species in the list of species to be avoided in both onsite mitigation and landscaping. See also the preceding response.

Response to Comment 6-13. In the recirculated Biological Resources section of the EIR, additoinal mitigation measures have been included to compensate for project impacts. The Updated Biological Assessment (Appendix A of the RDEIR) and the EIR includes the following mitigation measure to reduce impacts to streambeds to a no net loss level:

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM10. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, to mitigate for the loss of

The project proponent will enter into a agreement with CDFW and the Resource Conservation Authority to ensure design related impacts to streambeds and riparian/riverine habitat are reduced to the greatest extent practicable while also accomplishing the project goal(s).

The design attempted to minimize impacts to drainages, and Alternative designs are discussed in Section 8 of the Updated Biological Assessment. Impacts to both Feature 1 and 3 are required to create a secondary access point for project transportation circulation and public safety. Complete avoidance would remove efficient looped water system within the Project and risk in fire situations would be increased. To avoid impacts to the features and still maintain two access points, development would be limited to the northern third of the project site. This alternative would not generate enough revenue to pay for the needed infrastructure and other improvements. If this alternative were advanced, the project would not generate enough revenue to pay for the needed infrastructure and other improvements and it is likely that the southern two thirds of the project site would be subdivided and sold to produce revenue to offset development costs. See Response to Comment 3-3 above for more detail.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-78
January 19, 2016
Attn: Jason Moquin, Senior Planner
City of Corona
Community Development Department
400 South Vicentia Avenue
Corona, CA 92882-2187
RE: Skyline Heights Project; GPA 13-003, CZ 13-002, Annexation 117, TTM 36544 After review of the proposed mitigation measures, we found some specific concerns with the language being proposed.

I have made some substantial edits to the language in the mitigation measures. Formal edits by the Soboba Band are listed below:
• If inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are encountered at any time during construction, these materials and their context shall be avoided until a qualified archaeologist and representatives from both The Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians and The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians have consulted with the City of Corona regarding appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures for newly discovered resources. Project personnel shall not collect or retain cultural resources.

Prehistoric resources include but are not limited to: chert or obsidian flakes; projectile points; mortars and pestles; dark, friable soil containing shell and bone; dietary to debris; heat – affected rock; or human burials. Historic resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits (Glass, metal, wood, or ceramics), often found in old Wells and privies. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources. • All sacred items, should they be encountered within the project site, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation if feasible. All cultural materials that are collected during excavation and other earths disturbing activities on the project site with the exception of sacred items, burial goods and human remains shall reach final disposition through one or more of the following methods:
a. A fully executed reburial agreement with the appropriate culturally affiliated Native American tribes or bands. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. b. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified institution within Riverside County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and therefore would be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study and for the option of repatriation through the NAGPRA process to federally recognized Indian Tribes. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate institution for curation within Riverside County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation.
• If more than one Native American Group is involved with the project and cannot come to an agreement as to the disposition of cultural materials, they shall be curated at the Western Science Center by default.

As a follow up to these comments, The Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians is requesting to initiate formal consultation with the City of Corona. A meeting can be scheduled by contacting me via email or phone. All contact information has been included in this letter.

I look forward to hearing from and meeting with you soon.

Sincerely,
Joseph Ontiveros, Director of Cultural Resources
Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA 92581
Phone (951) 654-5544 ext. 4137
Cell (951) 663-5279
[email protected]
Confidentiality: The entirety of the contents of this letter shall remain confidential between Soboba and the City of Corona. No part of the contents of this letter may be shared, copied, or utilized in any way with any other individual, entity, municipality, or tribe, whatsoever, without the expressed written permission of the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians.

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 7
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Director of Cultural Resources
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinot, CA 92581
Response to Letter 7
Response to Comment 7-1 through 7-3. Please see Response to Comment 8-1 (Letter 8, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-81
1 David Crook
From: Jason Moquin <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 5:17 PM
To: David Crook
Cc: Joseph Ontiveros (Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians); Anna Hoover (Pechanga Band of Mission Indians); 'Ebru Ozdil ([email protected])' Subject: Cultural Resources Mitigation Skyline Heights Final EIR David,
Please see below. These need to be incorporated in the EIR and some may be duplicative of those that are existing.

1. At least 30 days prior to beginning project construction; the Project Applicant shall contact the appropriate Tribe to notify the Tribe of grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. As a result of the SB18 Consultation request, the appropriate tribe (s) has been determined to be the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians.

2. Prior to beginning project construction, the Project Applicant shall retain a Riverside County qualified archaeological monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.

3. Prior to beginning project construction, the Project Archaeologist shall file a pre-grading report with the City (if required) to document the proposed methodology for grading activity observation. Said methodology shall include the requirement for a qualified archaeological monitor to be present and to have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. In accordance with the agreement required in MM1, the archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the appropriate Tribe in order to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Tribal monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities in consultation with the project archaeologist.

4. If inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are encountered at any time during construction, these materials and their context shall be avoided until a qualified archeologist and a representative from the appropriate culturally affiliated Native American tribes or bands have consulted with the City of Corona regarding appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures for the newly discovered resources. Construction personnel shall not collect or retain cultural resources. Prehistoric resources include, but are not limited to: chert or obsidian flakes; projectile points; mortars and pestles; dark, friable soil containing shell and bone; dietary debris; heat-affected rock; or human burials. Historic resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits (glass, metal, wood, ceramics), often found in old wells and privies. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archeological resources.

5. All sacred sites, should they be encountered, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible.

6. All discoveries of cultural resources shall be curated at the Western Science Center, a qualified repository within Riverside County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and therefore would be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, for curations purposes at the Western Science Center within Riverside County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation.

7. Should construction/development activities uncover paleontological resources, work will be moved to other parts of the Project site and a qualified paleontologist shall determine the significance of these resources. If the find is 2 determined to be significant, avoidance or other appropriate measures shall be implemented. Appropriate measures would include that a qualified paleontologist be permitted to recover and evaluate the find(s) in accordance with current standards and guidelines.

8. Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, subdivision (e), in the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the County Coroner shall be notified and construction activities at the affected work site shall be halted. If the remains are found to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours. The NAHC must immediately notify the Most Likely Descendant(s) under Public Resources Code §5097.98 and the descendants must make recommendations or preference for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. Guidelines of the Native American Heritage Commission shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains in accordance with the provisions of Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and Public Resources Code §5097.98.

Jason Moquin, Senior Planner
“Promoting and Sustaining Quality Development”

City of Corona | Community Development Department
400 S. Vicentia Ave. | Corona, CA 92882
(951) 736-2268 office | (951) 279-3550 fax
Business Hours: Mon-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM
www.discovercorona.com
 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 8
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Director of Cultural Resources
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinot, CA 92581
Response to Letter 8
Response to Comment 8-1. As requested by the commenter, based on input received in this and other comment letters from affected tribal groups, the existing archaeological and Native American resources mitigation on page 4.D-20 of the Draft EIR has been modified as shown in Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR, in this Final EIR.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-84

This petition has collected
88 signatures
using the online tools at iPetitions.com
Printed on 2016-01-19

Page 1 of 9 ends

Call for Temporary Moratorium on New Homes in Corona
About this petition
The following petition requests the following of the City of Corona and its representatives:

1. An immediate moratorium on all future new home development for a period of no less than five (5) years following the completion of all current home, freeway, and roadway construction currently in progress. This would include any homes in the planning stages such is those represented in the Skyline Heights project.

2. During this time and until the end of the five (5) year moritorium, Corona City would conduct a study, develop and present a report to its citizens that the current and immediate future infrastructure would be present to support any further development.

3. In addition, the City of Corona should provide it's citizens a well reasoned argument as to why new home development is necessary and beneficial to the current citizens within it's community.

This petition is for Corona, California residents.

The goal of this petition is NOT to ban all future home development, but to provide a moment of pause while we gain a genuine understanding of our current and immediate future situation with regard to traffic flow and infrastructural support.

Page 2 of 9 ends

Signatures

1. Name: Eric Peterson on 2016-01-13 05:11:41
Comments:

2. Name: Rosario Rivera on 2016-01-13 05:26:00
Comments:

3. Name: Debi Savicky on 2016-01-13 05:30:08
Comments:

4. Name: Roseann Moore on 2016-01-13 05:30:48
Comments:

5. Name: Sandra Marsh on 2016-01-13 05:35:10
Comments:

6. Name: Lisa Farragut on 2016-01-13 05:36:08
Comments:

7. Name: sal on 2016-01-13 05:38:40
Comments:

8. Name: Randy Coots on 2016-01-13 05:53:28
Comments:

9. Name: Ron Papp on 2016-01-13 05:54:26
Comments:

10. Name: Autumn Berte on 2016-01-13 06:00:45
Comments:

11. Name: Jennifer campbell on 2016-01-13 06:02:37
Comments:

12. Name: Michael dehdashtian on 2016-01-13 06:08:22
Comments:

13. Name: Annie Duenas on 2016-01-13 06:10:03
Comments:

14. Name: Matt Olsen on 2016-01-13 06:11:11

Page 3 of 9 ends

Comments:

15. Name: Kirsten OReilly on 2016-01-13 06:18:07
Comments: Infrastructure and resident safety needs to come first.

16. Name: Nicole krenzin on 2016-01-13 06:30:22
Comments: I can't see how more homes can even be an option when traffic is as bad as it is. And where are all these new kids going to go to school? Please stop building on every plot of open land...what's left of the open space is one of the only things that makes it appealing.

17. Name: Eloisa Serna on 2016-01-13 06:30:38
Comments: The housing development needs to slow down and I totally agree with and believe studies will help understand the impact these new homes have made.

18. Name: Cynthia Cooke on 2016-01-13 06:32:37
Comments:

19. Name: Julie trapp on 2016-01-13 06:43:58
Comments: Please, temporarily step back and choose the best direction for the citizens of this community!!

20. Name: Mari Carter on 2016-01-13 06:50:27
Comments:

21. Name: Nathan tayloe on 2016-01-13 06:53:34
Comments: Slow it down just a little, getting out of control.

22. Name: Julie Bruckner on 2016-01-13 07:00:13
Comments:

23. Name: Chris Peck on 2016-01-13 07:01:13
Comments:

24. Name: Nate taylor on 2016-01-13 07:05:33
Comments:

25. Name: Mike mcclelland on 2016-01-13 07:50:21
Comments: More business less homes!!

26. Name: Sangita Patel on 2016-01-13 08:42:47
Comments: We're on a stage 3 water shortage, yet more houses are being built, our high schools are overpacked with students and will be impacted more unless new schools are

Page 4 of 9 ends

built and of course road construction is taking place throughout the whole city-please share your plans if you already have taken these points plus more into consideration.

27. Name: Teresa Froesch on 2016-01-13 08:59:40
Comments:

28. Name: Brian Osterhout on 2016-01-13 09:17:32
Comments:

29. Name: Ricardo Martinez on 2016-01-13 13:33:42
Comments:

30. Name: Ronald R Papp on 2016-01-13 13:46:59
Comments: Let's do this.............

31. Name: Lindsey Wilcox on 2016-01-13 14:07:24
Comments:

32. Name: Lora Papp on 2016-01-13 14:23:15
Comments:

33. Name: Allison Snorek on 2016-01-13 14:33:09
Comments:

34. Name: Chad Williams on 2016-01-13 14:57:40
Comments:

35. Name: Kathy Heitmann on 2016-01-13 15:04:06
Comments:

36. Name: Elaine Hicks on 2016-01-13 15:23:04
Comments: Our city streets and freeways can't handle anymore traffic. Our schools and prisons are full. Our infrastructure needs attention before we can think about building more homes. There isn't enough water for the current homes located in Corona and Riverside.

37. Name: Elizabeth Cardenas on 2016-01-13 15:45:31
Comments:

38. Name: Kelly Bach on 2016-01-13 16:31:46
Comments:

Page 5 of 9 ends

39. Name: Brad Roekle on 2016-01-13 17:11:05
Comments: No more homes. We have enough for now. The new freeway expansion isn't even expected to be completed until 2017 and we don't even know what kind of impact that will do to the morning/evening commute.

40. Name: Jan Lewis on 2016-01-13 17:11:36
Comments:

41. Name: Christina on 2016-01-13 17:21:05
Comments:

42. Name: Kami Leonard on 2016-01-13 17:45:41
Comments:

43. Name: Caroline Wise on 2016-01-13 17:51:09
Comments:

44. Name: Brittany Baker on 2016-01-13 17:51:15
Comments:

45. Name: Bobbi Hamby on 2016-01-13 18:02:12
Comments:

46. Name: Tara Upchurch on 2016-01-13 18:36:36
Comments:

47. Name: Amy on 2016-01-13 20:01:45
Comments:

48. Name: Kelly Vande Vegte on 2016-01-13 21:47:28
Comments:

49. Name: Joyce Hanz on 2016-01-14 00:06:52
Comments:

50. Name: mark rogers on 2016-01-14 00:35:04
Comments:

51. Name: Melissa on 2016-01-14 03:50:31
Comments:

52. Name: Sara Thompson on 2016-01-14 03:51:43

Page 6 of 9 ends

Comments:

53. Name: Shelley brown on 2016-01-14 05:11:54
Comments:

54. Name: Scott Arnold on 2016-01-14 06:29:11
Comments:

55. Name: Michelle Arnold on 2016-01-14 15:08:54
Comments: Enough is enough, schools over crowded not to mention traffic, crime and the already packed streets from existing construction

56. Name: Laura Sellman on 2016-01-14 15:19:30
Comments:

57. Name: Angie Rihner Labuda on 2016-01-14 16:07:35
Comments:

58. Name: Robert G Manzo on 2016-01-14 18:51:25
Comments:

59. Name: Donna on 2016-01-15 13:45:58
Comments: We need to stop building just because there is open land. We need to put the current residents first. The infrastructure, roads, schools, and water cannot support the mindless growth. . We need to stop Corona from annexing additional land just to build more homes.

We need more businesses in Corona not more homes.

60. Name: Michael Collins on 2016-01-15 13:54:25
Comments:

61. Name: Mohammed dibas on 2016-01-15 14:04:29
Comments:

62. Name: Mary kunkle on 2016-01-15 14:12:57
Comments:

63. Name: Justin massey on 2016-01-15 14:19:49
Comments:

64. Name: Jeaneen Cockrell on 2016-01-15 15:00:12
Comments:

Page 7 of 9 ends

65. Name: Valen Hoffman on 2016-01-15 15:22:42
Comments: No more homes!

66. Name: Karl Weckwerth on 2016-01-15 16:29:28
Comments:

67. Name: Kim Lord on 2016-01-15 17:03:56
Comments:

68. Name: Susan Friedhoff on 2016-01-15 17:14:59
Comments:

69. Name: John Phalen on 2016-01-15 17:23:58
Comments:

70. Name: Agnieszka Guzzetti on 2016-01-15 17:58:40
Comments:

71. Name: Andrea Shallanberger on 2016-01-15 19:17:07
Comments: No more new homes, please, until roads can be made to accommodate even more traffic. Improvements on the 91 and 15 should be finished before a true study can be conducted. Thanks!

72. Name: Bill Hancock on 2016-01-15 21:13:33
Comments:

73. Name: Nichole Reyes on 2016-01-15 22:19:18
Comments:

74. Name: Marc J Kaplan on 2016-01-15 23:09:38
Comments:

75. Name: Kari Broy on 2016-01-16 02:05:02
Comments:

76. Name: Connie Mckenney on 2016-01-16 03:21:53
Comments:

77. Name: Amanda Garcia on 2016-01-16 03:48:19
Comments:

78. Name: JoDel Clark on 2016-01-16 04:32:31

Page 8 of 9 ends

Comments:

79. Name: Christina leiblic on 2016-01-16 05:16:36
Comments:

80. Name: Jennifer Lara on 2016-01-16 05:53:58
Comments:

81. Name: Gladys Granados on 2016-01-16 06:07:58
Comments:

82. Name: Katrina Armstrong on 2016-01-16 06:23:13
Comments:

83. Name: Annie Tang on 2016-01-16 15:08:19
Comments: We understand the City of Corona wants to generate revenue, and new home development is extremely lucrative. However, as a responsible city, it is your obligation to ensure the growth of new home development is acceptable with the current infrastructure. The apartment homes have multiplied over the last 2 years, needless to say, the traffic condition has worsen significantly. If the growth and development for our infrastructure are not increasing in a ratio that is acceptable to accommodate planned housing growth, then it would be criminal to ignore our request to pause housing development.

84. Name: Curtis Taylor on 2016-01-17 03:02:31
Comments:

85. Name: Susan Wright on 2016-01-17 03:55:44
Comments: We need more open space, not more homes.

86. Name: Bridget Smith on 2016-01-17 17:36:22
Comments:

87. Name: Amy Welch on 2016-01-19 05:48:54
Comments:

88. Name: Donna Peterson on 2016-01-19 05:55:48
Comments:

Page 9 of 9 ends

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 9
Petition-Moratorium
iPetitions.com
Response to Letter 9
Response to Comment 9-1. The comment requesting an immediate moratorium on all future new home development, and an associated study, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to the portion of the comment requesting that the City of Corona provide its citizens a well reasoned argument as to why new home development is necessary and beneficial to the current citizens within the community, CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires the following:
(a) “CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable”. (b) “When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.”
(c) “If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination.” The project would result in significant unavoidable aesthetics (e.g., views, scenic vistas, visual resources, and visual character) impacts as identified in Section 6.1, Significant Unavoidable Impacts, of the Draft EIR.

Therefore, consistent with the above requirements, the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding its significant unavoidable impacts, are set forth on pages 6-1 and 6-2 of the Draft EIR, and include: (1) the project would achieve a considerable number of City-related project objectives; and (2) the significant unavoidable impacts of the project are based on landform alteration and would occur with any construction of the project site (see pages 6-1 and 6-2 for further discussion. In addition, if the City decides to approve the project, it will be required to prepare a statement of overriding considerations for inclusion in the record and notice of determination which explains why the City is approving the project despite the project’s significant unavoidable impacts.

Response to Comment 9-2. This comment regarding infrastructure and resident safety is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the comment of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-94
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Response to Comment 9-3. The Draft EIR evaluated traffic impacts in Section 4.M, Transportation, with supporting data provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) in Appendix K, and evaluated impacts to schools in Section 4.L. As indicated on pages 4.M-24 and 4.M-44 of the Draft EIR, the project would result in less than significant construction traffic impact with implementation of the proposed Construction Management Plan and less than significant operational traffic impacts with implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures (including along the recently completed Foothill Parkway Extension and along Green River Road, etc.). As indicated on page 4.L-26 of the Draft EIR, the project would result in less than significant impacts on public services (including schools) with implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures and payment of applicable development fees (including the requisite California Government Code Section 65995 (e.g., SB 50) school mitigation fees), and would not require the construction of new schools. (See Comment 67-5 (Letter Courtney Kasey) and Comment 70-3 (Letter Courtney Kasey).

With regard to the request to stop building “on every plot of open land”, and the statement that open space is one of the only things that makes it appealing, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers.

However, as these comments do not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is required.

Response to Comment 9-4. The comment that housing development needs to slow down is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warrant.

With regard to the comment that studies will help understand the impact these new homes will have, the Draft EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and fully evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the project. The Draft EIR: evaluates the impacts of the project in terms 15 separate environmental issues (aesthetics, biological resources, noise, transportation, etc.), including cumulative impacts, in Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis; evaluates feasible alternative to the project in Chapter 5, Alternatives; and evaluates the significant unavoidable impacts, growth-inducing impacts, potential secondary effects, and other CEQA-mandated impacts associated with the project in Chapter 6, Other Mandatory CEQA Considerations. These analyses are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including but not limited to technical studies (e.g., Biological Resources Assessment, Noise Impact Analysis, Traffic Impact Analysis, etc.) provided in the technical appendices of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 9-5. This comment requesting that the City step back and choose the best direction for the citizens of the community is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 9-6. This comments requesting that the City slow it down a little, and that it’s getting out of control, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 9-7. This comment, stating more business less homes, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 9-8. The Draft EIR evaluated impacts to water supply in Section 4.N, Utilities and City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-95

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Service Systems, with supporting data provided in the Water Study included in Appendix L. As indicated on page 4.N-34 of the Draft EIR, sufficient water supplies are available to serve the project from existing and proposed entitlements and resources, and impacts regarding water supplies would be less than significant.

The analysis includes consideration of whether sufficient water supplies would exist in addition to the existing and planned future demands on the City during a normal year, single-dry year, and multiple dry years, and is based, in part, on water supply data included in the adopted City of Corona 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Furthermore, as indicated on page 4.N-38 and 4.N-39 of the Draft EIR, the project would comply with all required City water conservation requirements. Lastly, because adequate water supplies are available to serve the project based on existing and proposed water supply entitlements and resources, approval of the project would not require further water conservation by City of Corona residents.

With regard to project impacts on schools, please see Response to Comment 9-3 above.

Response to Comment 9-9. This comment, stating “Let’s do this”, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 9-10. With regard to the impacts of the project on traffic and schools, please see Response to Comment 9-3 above.

With regard to infrastructure, the draft EIR evaluated roadway infrastructure in Section 4.M, Transportation, with supporting data provided in the TIA in Appendix K, and evaluated utility infrastructure in Section 4.N, Utilities and Service Systems, with supporting data provided in the Water, Recycled Water and Sewer Studies in Appendix L. As indicated on page 4.M-44 and 4.N-61 of the Draft EIR, the project would result in less than significant impacts to roadway and utility infrastructure with implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures.

With regard to the water supply impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 9-8 above.

Response to Comment 9-11. The comment stating “No more homes. We have enough for now”, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to the comment that improvements currently underway on the SR-91 and I-15 freeways should be finished before the traffic study for the project is conducted, it would not be practical or reasonable to require that the cited improvements to regional facilities such as the 91 and 15 Freeways be constructed and operational before preparing the project TIA. Furthermore, it is not necessary for the improvements to be completed to provide an adequate evaluation of future traffic conditions, as accepted industry practice for traffic forecasting utilizes computer models that can account for the presence of future improvements, including those to local freeways in the area. Thus, the project TIA assumes that improvements to the 91 Freeway, on- and off-ramps for which are among the affected facilities analyzed in the TIA’s study area, are completed prior to operation of the proposed project. This assumption is reasonable given the relative timing of the freeway improvements (which are currently under construction and nearing completion in the western portion of the City of Corona) and implementation of the project (which will necessarily follow City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-96
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
completion of the City’s Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project, construction of which has recently been completed), and thus future conditions that are assumed in the analysis of project impacts in the TIA reflect reasonably foreseeable future traffic conditions in the area and no further analysis is warranted.

Response to Comment 9-12. The comment “Enough is enough” is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to traffic and schools, please see Response to Comment 9-3.

With regard to police protection (e.g., crime), the Draft EIR evaluated police protection in Section 4.L, Public Services, with supporting correspondence and background information provided in Appendix J. As indicated on pages 4.L-14 and 4.L-15 of the Draft EIR, the project would result in less than significant police protection impacts with adherence to applicable regulatory requirements (including the set aside of land within the project site for a CPD radio facility, if required), implementation of the proposed project design features, and implementation of Mitigation Measure PS-4 requiring the payment of required service and development fees to the City to fund CPD capital costs associated with acquiring land for new police facilities, constructing new police facilities, and providing for additional CPD staff.

Response to Comment 9-13. The comments stating the need to stop building just because there is open land, putting current residents first, stopping Corona from annexing additional land just to build more homes, and the need for more businesses in Corona rather than more homes are noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as these comments do not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to the infrastructure/roads, schools, and water supply impacts of the project, please see Responses to Comments 9-10, 9-3 and 9-8, respectively, above.

Response to Comment 9-14. The comments stating no more home until roads can be made to accommodate the traffic is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as these comments do not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to the ability of roads to accommodate project traffic, please see Response to Comment 9-3 above.

With regard to the comment that improvements currently underway on the SR-91 and I-15 freeways should be finished before the traffic study for the project is conducted, please see Response to Comment 9-11 above.

Response to Comment 9-15. The request to pause housing development until infrastructure in the City is able to accommodate it is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted With regard to the traffic and infrastructure impacts of the project, please see Responses to Comments 9-3 and 9-10, respectively, above.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-97

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Response to Comment 9-16. The comment stating the need for more open space, not more homes, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-98
1 David Crook
From: Jason Moquin <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 3:19 PM
To: David Crook
Subject: FW: Skyline Heights
Please see additional correspondence.

Jason Moquin, Senior Planner
“Promoting and Sustaining Quality Development”

From: Nicole Krenzin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 12:04 PM
To: Jason Moquin
Subject: Skyline Heights
Dear Mr. Moquin,
I am writing in regards to the proposed Skyline Heights development. We have spoken before regarding this issue, but this is my formal request to be sent any and all public notices regarding the project. This email also serves as my formal objection to the project. I oppose the project for the following reasons:
-Traffic in our neighborhoods, surface streets and freeways are already beyond horrible. It takes my husband at least an hour and a half, each way, to get to his job in Irvine. Almost half of that hour and a half is dimply getting TO the 91 freeway. Adding more homes (on top of the already in progress development above Green River) would only serve to congest our streets further, and we simply CANNOT handle any more cars. I do not believe that the 91 project or the foothill extension will provide any relief because of all of the new homes already being built in corona. Not to mention the 8,000+ homes that we're just approved just outside our Southern border in the City of Lake Elsinore.
-There is simply not enough infrastructure to support all of these new homes. Our streets and freeways are often times impassable, making it a pain to even do the simplest of tasks; going to work, going shopping, dropping our kids off at schools. We literally have to plan our lives around the traffic. I often have to shop online, or have my husband shop in Orange County because it is such a pain to go anywhere in this City. On the issue of schools: our schools are already crowded. There are no new schools planned. Where are all of these new families (of all the new developments) going to send their children? -One of the reasons we moved to Corona was because of the beautiful view of the mountains, and because it had a relatively good amount of open space (compared to Orange County). With all these new homes being built, I have seen our beautiful mountains continually get chopped into for more and more homes. If this project moves forward, the tops of the beautiful mountains that I see when I look out my front window will 2 razed and replaced with hundreds of homes. It will literally ruin an entire portion of the city's view of the Cleveland forest.

Please focus on fixing what we've already got before adding new homes. Re-vamp the downtown. Give us places to work, and shop, and gather as a community. Quality, not quantity.

If the city does choose to proceed with this project, the developer should be required to incorporate a walking/hiking trail along the perimeter. One hiking trail (that is very difficult to access, because of the poor planning when they built homes literally up to the edge of the trail, providing no parking) is simply not enough in a city this large, that borders a national forest. If we cannot build a hiking trail in the forest, then the developer should include that in their plans.

I realize that cities have to grow. But there has to be good and proper planning, and there has to be adequate infrastructure in place. Corona hasn't done the best job with either of those things. Let's start now.

In closing, please consider putting a stop to the Skyline Heights project.

Thank you for your time, and consideration of the citizen's of Corona's opinions.

Respectfully,
Nicole Krenzin
2627 Falcon Circle
Corona, CA 92882
714.323.6543
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 10
Nicole Krenzin
2627 Falcon Circle
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
Response to Letter 10
Response to Comment 10-1. This comment provides a general introduction regarding the comments raised in this letter. Responses to the comments contained in this letter are provided below in Responses to Comments 10-2 through 10-7 below.

The commenter’s request to be added to the notification list is noted, and notices will be provided as appropriate. Also, the expressed opposition to the project is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. As these comments do not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 10-2. With regard to the traffic impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).

With regard to whether the Foothill Parkway Extension Project and the SR 91 improvements currently underway would provide congestion relief in the City, the Foothill Parkway Extension Project was completed in late 2016 and the SR 91 improvements are anticipated to be completed in 2017. Consistent with CEQA requirements, and in order to provide a comprehensive traffic analysis, multiple timeframe scenarios are evaluated in the traffic analysis as indicated on page 4.M-14 of the Draft EIR, including existing (baseline), 2020, and 2035 conditions, both with and without the project, along with several recommended improvement scenarios. As indicated on pages 4.M-16 through 4.M-18, because the Foothill Parkway and SR 91 improvements will not come on-line until 2017, the existing scenarios were evaluated assuming that these improvements are not in place, while the 2020 and 2035 scenarios were evaluated assuming that these improvements are in place. Therefore, the traffic analysis evaluates the traffic impacts of the project both without and with the Foothill Parkway and SR 91 improvements, and as indicated on page 4.M-44, in both instances the project would result in less than significant operational traffic impacts with implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures.

With regard to the assumptions in the traffic analysis about cumulative development in the City and greater region, as indicated on page 4.M-20 of the Draft EIR, the future 2020 and 2035 analysis timeframe scenarios both include traffic generated by other development in the area. As further indicated, the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was conducted using the City’s travel demand model for the City of Corona Circulation Element Update. The 2035 General Plan Buildout traffic volume forecasts were obtained through utilization of the City’s model, which is based on data from the Revised Travel Demand Model of the City of Corona’s General Plan, with selected regional projects from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) added. The 2020 traffic volume forecasts were obtained by interpolating between the Existing and 2035 traffic volumes, as well as by reducing the 2035 traffic volumes by one percent per year for 15 years. Because both the City of Corona Circulation Element Update travel City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-101

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
demand model and the selected regional projects from the RTP include traffic assumptions for the development currently and to occur in the City and greater region by 2020 and 2035, and because the with project analysis adds project traffic to these projected 2020 and 2035 traffic volumes, the traffic analysis incorporates the traffic associated with cumulative development.

Response to Comment 10-3. Please see Response to Comments 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin) regarding project traffic and schools impacts, and Response to Comments 9- 10 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Ronald R Papp) regarding project infrastructure impacts.

Response to Comment 10-4. Please see Responses to Comments 1-4 under “Scenic Integrity” and 1-9 under “Skyline Silhouette” (both in Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

Response to Comment 10-5. The comments regarding fixing what we’ve already got before adding new homes, re-vamping downtown, giving us places to work shop and gather as a community, and quality, not quantity are noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as these comments do not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 10-6. Please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

Response to Comment 10-7. The comment provides a general conclusion regarding the comments raised in this letter. Responses to the comments contained in this letter are provided above in Responses to Comments 10-1 through 10-6.

With regard to the portion of the comment on the infrastructure impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 9-10 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Elaine Hicks).

With regard to the portion of the comment requesting that the City put a stop to the project, this portion of the comment is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this portion of the comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-102
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
INSERT LETTER 11 (page 1 of 6)
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-103

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
INSERT LETTER 11 (page 2 of 6)
City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-104

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 11
Dwight Woodward
Response to Letter 11
Response to Comment 11-1. Please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District). As indicated therein: (1) the project would preserve the only designated publically accessible trail (e.g., Skyline Trail) within the annexation area; (2) the project (e.g., tentative tract map) is proposed on private and not public land; (3) several undesignated trails traverse the project site and would be impacted by the project, but these trails occur on private property and are not dedicated for public access by a recorded easement; and (4) the project would result in less than significant impacts to publicly dedicated trails. For all these reasons, a public path leading from one of the Overlooks shown in Figure 2-10 to the local trail system is not warranted. Still, as indicated in Response to Comment 5-1, the applicant has agreed to work with the community to address ongoing access to and use of on-site trails in order to respond to public concerns. Therefore, there may eventually be some publically assessable trail connection between the project site and the local trail system in addition to Skyline Trail.

Response to Comment 11-2. The Draft EIR evaluated biological resources impacts, including impacts to jurisdictional and Riparian/Riverine areas of the project site, in Section 4.C, Biological Resources, with supporting data provided in the Biological Resources Assessment, Surveys, and Jurisdictional Delineation provided in Appendix D. As indicated in Figure 2-7, Tentative Tract Map 36544, in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the canyon highlighted in the comment is the canyon at the foot of Meadowcrest Circle, just north of the northern terminus of West Foothill Parkway (prior to construction of the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project, which was recently completed in late 2016). As indicated in Figure 2-7, the majority of this canyon is within the proposed annexation area and the “Not A Part” area, but outside the project site (TTM 36544), and would not be disturbed.

Although it is not clear to what the “highlighted canyon” refers, Figure 4.C-1 depicts only a single prominent drainage, and that is Mabey Canyon. Mabey Canyon crosses the northern third of the site. The project has been designed to avoid almost all impacts to this drainage because of its size, habitat value and its use for wildlife movement, however, the project design does encroach on the northern edge of Mabey Canyon Wash and impact approximately 0.08 acres of the drainage.

Mitigation for jurisdictional drainage impacts will be in the form of offsite acquisition and preservation, participation in an approved mitigation bank, and/or on or offsite creation, enhancement, or reestablishment of the streambed. The location of mitigation is negotiated with the lead and regulatory agencies, which may or may not include onsite mitigation. For example, oak trees will be mitigated primarily onsite, while other biological resources could be mitigated on or offsite as a result of agency requirements and site conditions. Mitigation areas must have specific characteristics that will support the natural habitat and its long-term survival without assistance.

Response to Comment 11-3. The Draft EIR evaluated biological resources impacts, including impacts to blue line streams, in Section 4.C, Biological Resources, with supporting data provided in the Biological Resources Assessment, Surveys, and Jurisdictional Delineation provided in Appendix D, while the RDEIR City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-109

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
addressed these resources in Section 4.C, with supporting analysis and documentation provided in the Updated Biological Resources Assessment included as Appendix A. As indicated on RDEIR page 4.C-31 and in Figure 4.C-7, Jurisdictional Features Map, the project site supports 18.35 acres of state jurisdictional streambed, of which 2.16 acres is federal non-wetland jurisdictional area (e.g., “waters of the U.S.”).. As indicated on RDEIR pages 4.C-56 through 4.C-59, the project would impact 5.38 acres of this state jurisdictional streambed, of which 1.57 acres (19,801 linear feet) is federal jurisdictional drainages as shown in Figure 4.C-10, Impacts to Jurisdictional Features, in Section 4.C of the RDEIR. As further indicated therein, with implementation of RDEIR Mitigation Measures BIO-MM9 and BIO-MM10, which outline regulatory requirements to obtain regulatory permits (e.g., CWA Section 404 permit, CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and/or California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Stream Alteration Agreement) project impacts to these jurisdictional features (including blue line streams) would be less than significant.

Response to Comment 11-4. The Draft EIR evaluated geology and soils impacts, including impacts from faulting, in Section 4.E, Geology and Soils, with supporting information provided in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation included in Appendix F. As indicated in Figure 4.E-2, the Tin Mine Fault and associated Alquist Priolo Fault Zone bisects the western portion of the project site in a northwest to southeast alignment. However, as indicated on page 4.E-6, the portion of the Tin Mine Fault that bisects the project site is assessed not to be active according to the Alquist Priolo definition based on a literature review, aerial photographic analyses, field mapping, logging of 13 excavator trenches up to 1,170 feet long and 17 excavator pits along the fault, and lack of displaced pre-Holocene deposits on top of the fault. Therefore, as indicated on page 4.E-18 of the Draft EIR, with adherence to the design and remedial grading recommendations set forth in Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-23, the Tin Mine Fault and other faults on and within the vicinity of the project site would not pose significant fault rupture, seismic, or seismically-related hazards to the project.

Response to Comment 11-5. This comment expresses concern that the project design would cause significant visual and biological resources impacts, including impacts to project site drainages, and an alternative design should be proposed. The EIR acknowledges that the project will have a significant impact to visual and biological resources, for which mitigation is proposed to reduce these impacts. The recommended mitigation measures for biological resources would reduce project impacts to a less than significant level. However, impacts to visual resources (aesthetics) are found to remain significant even after mitigation and a statement of overriding considerations is required.

In addition, the lead agency has considered alternative designs that reduce project impacts in Chapter 5, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. The City of Corona has considered these alternatives in the project application decision.

Response to Comment 11-6. The Draft EIR evaluated impacts related to fire access in Section 4.L, Public Services, with supporting data provided in the public services correspondence and background information provided in Appendix J. As indicated on pages 4.L-13, as required by Mitigation Measure PS-1, the project Applicant shall obtain CFD review and approval of the site plan, fuel modification plan, and project design features including, but not limited to: roadways designed to meet or exceed minimum fire and emergency access requirements including ingress/egress; minimum driveway and fire lane widths of 28 feet; minimum turning radii of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside; grades not to exceed 10 percent; and adequate on-site space to park CFD apparatus. Furthermore, as indicated in Figure 2-7, Tentative Tract Map 36544, in Chapter 2, Project Description, West Foothill Parkway (a four-lane divided secondary arterial) would run City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-110
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
immediately along the eastern side of the project, with multiple access points (including secondary emergency access) to be provided from this parkway into the proposed development. Therefore, adequate fire access would be provided, and as indicated on pages 4.L-12 through 4.L-14, with compliance with applicable regulatory requirements (e.g., CFC, CMC/Fire Code, CFD requirements, etc.), and with implementation of the proposed project design features and prescribed mitigation, impacts to fire protection and emergency medical services (including fire access) would be less than significant.

Response to Comment 11-7. The comment that the project would increase the financial strain to the City’s Public Works Department by having to maintain the storm drain system is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, financial impacts are not an issue to be evaluated in an EIR, as CEQA is concerned with the physical impacts of the Project on the environment, unless the economic effects of the Project translate to a physical impact on the environment (i.e., visual blight, physical deterioration of buildings, etc.). In this case, substantial evidence in the record has been provided by the commenter demonstrating that the increased financial costs to the City associated with maintaining the project’s storm drain system, if any, would lead to physical blight.

Response to Comment 11-8. Please see Response to Comment 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

Response to Comment 11-9. Please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

Response to Comment 11-10. Please see Response to Comment 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-111
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 3:43 PM
To: Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: SKYLINE TRAIL
FYI
From: Eugene Montanez
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 3:42 PM
To: Accounts Payable
Cc: Darrell Talbert
Subject: Re: SKYLINE TRAIL
Thank you for the email.

I am exploring other alternatives, but to avoid NO access to the trail, once Foothill is complete, this parking lot is necessary in the mean time.

The City does not own or control any property close by in the area, but again, I am looking at other ways to access the trail, closer.

Eugene Montanez
Council Member
City of Corona
951‐734‐8181 (personal office)
From: Accounts Payable <ap@signage‐solutions.com>
Date: Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 10:53 AM
To: Jason Scott <[email protected]>, Dick Haley <[email protected]>, Randy Fox <[email protected]>, Eugene Montanez <[email protected]>, Karen Spiegel <[email protected]>
Subject: SKYLINE TRAIL
I am writing to request that you NOT approve the parking area on Maguilar & Chase That is approximately 1 mile away from the Skyline Trailhead. Why can’t the city of Corona build a designated Parking area off Foothill before the mass amount of houses go up. This is a trail that my kids & I Have visited weekly for family hiking trips, now that they are teenagers they chose to spend There weekends hiking instead of getting in trouble in the community. Please reconsider This Parking Area and don’t make it impossible for Family’s to find a fun, free way to spend time together.

Best Regards,
DeAnna Murdock | Accounting Manager

SIGNAGESOLUTIONS
2231 S. Dupont Drive | Anaheim, CA | 92806
2 O: 714. 491. 0299
F: 714-491-0439
E: [email protected]
W: signage-solutions.com

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 12
DeAnna Murdock
Signage Solutions
2231 S. Dupont Drive
Anaheim, CA 92806
[email protected]
Response to Letter 12
Response to Comment 12-1. With regard to project impacts on Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comments 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

With regard to the request that the City not approve the planned Skyline Trail-related parking area on Chase Drive between Mangular and Skyline Drive, the request is noted and will be provided to the decision makers.

However, the planned parking area is being proposed by the City of Corona in response to the Foothill Parkway Extension Project to replace parking previously allowed by the City within the Foothill Parkway right-of-way, and is a project different from Skyline Heights and a separate project under CEQA (e.g., is not part of the proposed Skyline Heights Project). Therefore, no further response is required.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-114

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 13
Ann and Donald Long
1460 W. Chase Drive
Corona, CA 92882
Response to Letter 13
Response to Comment 13-1 through 13-3. Please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-118
1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 10:01 AM
To: David Crook; Mike Byer ([email protected]) Subject: FW: Protect Skyline Hiking Trails!
Fyi.

From: Sylvia Viayra
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 9:46 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Protect Skyline Hiking Trails!
Message sent to the full City Council.

From: A Demeo [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 9:28 AM
To: Randy Fox
Subject: Protect Skyline Hiking Trails!
Good morning,
I was writing to express my dissent and opposition to encroaching Skyline Hiking Trails with 100+ additional homes. From someone who grew up in Corona and watched the various natural grounds destroyed from further capital gains from more homes, I am disappointed to hear the City of Corona is looking to further expand, which will adversely affect parts of Skyline Hiking Trails.

Corona already has a commuting issue with the vast amount of cars and traffic, and we do not need additional housing, let alone any housing that will take away the remaining natural charm of the city. I grew up hiking Skyline and it saddens me that the city is willing to forego the few outdoor opportunities residents of Corona have to explore the beautiful wilderness that surrounds this city for housing profits, especially when the gridlock traffic already indicates we do not have more infrastructure to even support further expansion without further inconveniencing Corona residents with more cars on the road. This is a prime example of capitalisticdriven policy taking away from our environment, and I could not stand to not reach out and voice my opposition to the proposal.

Sincerely,
Alexis Demeo

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 14
Alexis Demeo
[email protected]
Response to Letter 14
Response to Comment 14-1. Please see Response to Comment 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service), and Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

Response to Comment 14-2. With regard to the comment that Corona already has a commuting issue and that we do not need additional housing, let alone any housing that will take away the remaining natural charm of the City, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9-3, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin) regarding traffic, and Response to Comment 1-4 under “Scenic Integrity” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) regarding aesthetics and visual character.

With regard to the comment expressing sadness that the City is willing to forego the few outdoor opportunities residents of Corona have to explore the surrounding wilderness, please see Response to Comment 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service), and Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-120
1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 2:49 PM
To: David Crook; Mike Byer ([email protected]) Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail & neighboring canyons!
Fyi
From: Sylvia Viayra
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 10:23 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail & neighboring canyons!
Message sent to the full City Council
From: David Wright [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 10:18 AM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Cc: [email protected]; David Wright
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail & neighboring canyons!
Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is David Wright and I am a home owner and resident of Corona, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located 2 generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I personally have hiked Skyline and surrounding trails hundreds of times in the past few years. I lead a hiking group that have AT LEAST two events every week, year round, exploring the Skyline trail system, including: Hagador, Tin Mine, Trudy, and Mabey canyons. Hiking here has literally changed my life on so many levels, and as a group leader I have seen the impact it has had on dozens of others as well. I have also seen usage of the trails increase steadily over the past couple of years and I would hate to see anything change that. A healthier and more active community benefits us all. I was very disappointed that only homeowners within a 500 foot radius of the Skyline Heights project were notified. At the very least there should have been public notice somewhere along the trail so the people enjoying one of the greatest benefits of living in Corona could have a voice! Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
David Wright
1359 Williamsburg Ln
Corona, CA 92882
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 15
David Wright
1359 Williamsburg Ln.

Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
Response to Letter 15
Response to Comment 15-1. With regard to the comment that Skyline Hiking Trail should be protected, please see Response to Comment 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service), and Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

With regard to the comment requesting that the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing be rejected, this comment is noted and will be provided to the decision makers.

However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 15-2. The comment requesting that the application for the annexation be rejected is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 15-3. The comment requesting that the application for the General Plan Amendment be rejected is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 15-4. The comment requesting that the application for the pre-zone be rejected is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 15-5. The comment requesting that the application for the subdivision be rejected is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 15-6. With regard to project impacts to the Skyline Hiking Trail and trail access, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District), and Response to Comment 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service), respectively.

With regard to encroachment of development and impacts to open space, please see Response to Comments 1-4 under “Land Use and Open Space” (Letter 4, County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Department).

With regard to the traffic impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, PetitionCity of Corona Skyline Heights Project ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-123

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).

Response to Comment 15-7. The comments describing the commenter’s experience with the Skyline trail system is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to the comment that the commenter would hate to see anything that changes the current trend towards increasing trail use, please see Response to Comment 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service), and Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

With regard to the impact on Skyline Trail associated with the increased use of the trail under the project, the Draft EIR evaluated impacts on trails in Section 4.I, Land Use and Planning. As indicated on page 4.I-15, while future project residents would likely utilize the existing trail facilities in the area, including the adjacent Skyline Trail, the increase in trail use associated with the project is expected to be nominal relative to existing trail usage, and thus the project would not be expected to result in measurable degradation of the trail.

With regard to the disappointment expressed that only homeowners within a 500 foot radius of the project were notified, and that there should have been public notice along the trail so that people enjoying the trail could comment on the project, this comment is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. Public noticing and consultations for the project has been and will continue to be conducted in accordance with CEQA and City of Corona requirements. This has included, but has not necessarily been limited to, the following:
• Notice of Preparation (NOP): Circulation of an NOP on February 4, 2013 announcing that an EIR was being prepared for the project, and soliciting comments from responsible and trustee agencies, organizations, and the public, on the required scope and content of the Draft EIR. The public review and comment period of 30 days required by CEQA was provided and in fact, this comment period was extended by five (5) days to provide additional time for public review and comment. • Public Scoping Meeting: A public scoping meeting was held on March 4, 2014 to solicit comments from the public on the required scope and content of the Draft EIR. This public scoping meeting was not required by CEQA, but requested by the City to provide the public the opportunity to comment on the preparation of the Draft EIR.
• Notice of Availability (NOA): The NOA for the Draft EIR was circulated to the State Clearinghouse on December 4, 2015 soliciting comments from responsible and trustee agencies, organizations, and the public, on the Draft EIR, while the NOA for the RDEIR was circulated to the State Clearinghouse on November 16, 2016. The public review period of 45 days required by CEQA was provided for both the Draft EIR and RDEIR.
• Planning and Housing Commission Hearings: The availability of the Draft EIR was made available to the general public for another 45 days starting on March 16, 2016 through May 2, 2016, at the same time the project was being advertised for public hearing at the Planning and Housing Commission on April 11, 2016. A second Planning and Housing Commission public hearing for the Draft EIR was City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-124
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
done on May 9, 2016, with the City accepting additional comments on the Draft EIR until that day.

The hearing on the Draft EIR was not required by CEQA, but was done by the City in order to give the public the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR in excess of CEQA requirements.

The notice for the NOP/public scoping meeting, NOA for both the Draft EIR and RDEIR, and the Planning and Housing Commission hearings, were: (1) mailed to responsible and trustee agencies, property owners within a 500-foot radius of the annexation area, and organizations and members of the public who requested the notices/announcement; (2) published in the Sentinel Weekly News newspaper. A public hearing notice sign was also posted on Foothill Parkway in proximity to the project site.

Furthermore, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b), the City shall provide all public agencies who submitted comments on the Draft EIR with proposed written responses to those comments at least 10 days prior to certification of the EIR. Although not required by CEQA, the City will also post the Final EIR on the City’s website during this 10 day review period so that members of the public may review the Final EIR before certification. Although not required by CEQA, the public will also be afforded the opportunity to comment on the project and Final EIR during the City Council hearing on the project.

Based on the above, ample opportunity has been provided to the public to comment on the project and the associated Draft EIR, including to members of the public that did not receive the notice/announcement mailings within 500 feet of the project site. Therefore, expansion of the noticing regime is not required.

Response to Comment 15-8. This comment provides a general conclusion regarding the comments raised in this letter. Responses to the comments contained in this letter are provided above in Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-7.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-125
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 10:51 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Message sent to the full City Council.

From: Dalia Terriquez [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 10:32 AM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Cc: [email protected]
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Dalia Terriquez and I am a resident of Corona, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I personally have hiked the Skyline trail for a nature walk with my children. We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Dalia Terriquez

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 16
Dalia Terriquez
[email protected]
Response to Letter 16
Responses to Comments 16-1 through 16-6. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6 (Letter 15, David Wright).

Response to Comment 16-7. Please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

Response to Comment 16-8. This comment provides a general conclusion regarding the comments raised in this letter. Responses to the comments contained in this letter are provided above in Responses to Comments 16-1 through 16-7.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-128
1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 9:53 AM
To: David Crook; Mike Byer ([email protected]) Cc: Nelson Nelson
Subject: FW: Skyline and adjoining canyons
Fyi on the response given by one of our councilmembers.

From: jeff nelson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 9:22 AM
To: Eugene Montanez
Cc: Darrell Talbert; Jason Scott
Subject: RE: Skyline and adjoining canyons
Thanks Eugene, and you are correct, I don't know all of the legalities of the development. I think many of us in this community are usually worried that more development equates to negative connotations, additional traffic etc. So mine is indeed a knee jerk reaction. I just love those hills. I'd hate to lose what we have, and or be pushed farther out. And I understand how current and future residents wouldn't want strangers walking through their back yards. So I imagine some restrictions will follow. And we'll lose that unique slice of life.

As for my family, I think my pop would have loved to have donated the grove property to become a citrus park. March and April are still wonderful up there with everything blooming. But inevitably, change does come.

Thank you again for the reply. I'll pass this on. And hopefully I'll be more involved as we move ahead.

Take care,
Jeff Nelson
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Skyline and adjoining canyons
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 15:50:17 +0000
Thanks for the email.

There are plenty of rumors out there, but that property is and has been private property, never a part of the forest. As your family owns property set for development in Corona, would you argue ALL property not be developed?
2 This development does not affect the trail in any way, and the existing development was to have been a gated community, and not one person came t the planning commission or council meetings years ago to stop that.

The residents could still pursue that, which would make using the trail much harder.

We are working on providing more parking for the trail, but some of the residents are opposed to that as well.

I agree the trail is great, but we need to have a complete plan in place, which is what we are attempting to accomplish.

Thanks again
Eugene Montanez
Council Member
City of Corona
951‐734‐8181 (personal office)
From: jeff nelson <[email protected]>
Date: Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 6:11 PM
To: Jason Scott <[email protected]>, Dick Haley <[email protected]>, Randy Fox <[email protected]>, Eugene Montanez <[email protected]>, Karen Spiegel <[email protected]>, Aaron Hake <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Skyline and adjoining canyons
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Jeff Nelson and I am a life long resident of Corona (with stays in NYC and Ann Arbor, MI). I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill
Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.
3 As a lifelong resident of Corona, I know most of you personally. And I do find that one of the amazing aspects of this city is that we have access to these wonderful trails. Already we've seen the Skyline trailhead backed up and paved. (And I think eventually those residents will try and further limit our access and hours.) I understand that these trails may not bring in revenue, but they do promote a quality of life that is difficult to find anywhere else. The trails in question offer wonderful variety of distance and difficulty. Opposed to the Tin Mine and Hagador Canyons, these trails can be looped, instead of doing a simple up and back. If I'm not playing basketball with the mayor on Sunday mornings, we are usually hiking those trails. And mostly, aside from the physical benefits, I just don't have the words to describe the wonderful variety of emotions I feel when I'm out there. There's accomplishment, there's nature and there is still a sense of freedom. Personally, those trails - the little things in life - are a wonderful part of living here in Corona. I hope you agree.

Thank you,
Jeff Nelson

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 17
Jeff Nelson
[email protected]
Response to Letter 17
Response to Comment 17-1. This comment is noted and will be provided to the decision makers.

However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 17-2. This comment is a response from the City of Corona to Comments 17-3 through 17-8 from Jeff Nelson. With regard to the portion of the City’s response stating that the project site is private property but has never been a part of the forest, this is not entirely incorrect. The project site is private property that is located wholly within the Cleveland National Forest (CNF), but not part of the forest’s public land. Please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Consistency with CNF LMP” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) for further discussion. With regard to portion of the City’s response regarding impacts on Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) for further discussion. With regard to the portion of the response regarding parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock) for further discussion.

Response to Comments 17-3 through 17-7. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6(Letter 15, David Wright).

Response to Comment 17-8. Please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-132
1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 8:11 AM
To: Mike Byer ([email protected]); David Crook Subject: FW: Skyline Drive Development
Fyi
From: Sylvia Viayra
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 8:04 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Skyline Drive Development
Message sent to the full City Council.

From: Kyle Ericson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 7:23 AM
To: Karen Spiegel
Subject: Skyline Drive Development
Dear Ms. Spiegel,

Just this weekend I became aware of the potential development of another 292 homes along Skyline Drive Trail. I am writing to you and the other board members at this time to voice my opposition to this proposal. I currently live off of Lincoln and Foothill and utilize Skyline Drive Trail at least 5 times a week for either running or mountain biking and I would hate to see that access denied or curtailed (which I’m sure would eventually happen once these homes are built).

Additionally, with the on-going expansion of Foothill Blvd. to Green River set to complete soon and finally alleviate some traffic and congestion in the area, this proposed development would render that a moot point almost immediately.

Also, unless the developer has discovered some new aquifer or well to derive water from, this development is only going to put a further strain on our already limited water resources. Personally, I have already removed all my grass and cut back severely on my water usage (I never exceed my Tier 1 allotment), but I don’t want to see that allotment cut back further or my rates increased in order to divert water to this new development.

In conclusion, I understand that the City is always in need of further revenues to provide services to its residents (my Father worked for the City back in the 60’s) and the potential development fees and future property taxes are intoxicating, but I strongly encourage you to think of the current residents of this area and the fact that once another part of the Cleveland National Forest is destroyed and developed, you can never get it back. Thank you for your time.

Kyle EricSon
3244 Mountain Pass Drive
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 18
Kyle Ericson
3244 Mountain Pass Drive
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
Response to Letter 18
Response to Comment 18-1. The comment expressing opposition to the project is noted and will be provided to the decision makers.

With regard to trail impacts/access, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

With regard to the traffic impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, PetitionMoratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).

Response to Comment 18-2. Please see Response to Comment 9-8 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Sangita Patel).

As further clarification, the City's Water Master Plan has always included the Skyline property since the property is within the City's Sphere of Influence (per Figure 3.3 of 2005 Water Master Plan) and plans for water services to the potential development on the property.

In regards to water usage, the City has invested in constructing reclaimed water systems throughout the City.

Most of the water that is being used for common areas and public landscape in new single family home development is recycled. The reclaimed water serves the public landscaping associated with parks, schools, and most Landscape Maintenance District lots throughout the City. The large slopes that will be created by the development will be irrigated with reclaimed water and efficient irrigation. Furthermore, the development is subject to the City’s new landscape ordinance which minimizes grass and uses very little water. Fifteen years ago all the landscaping was done with potable water. With the installation of a Reclaimed Water System within the City, the water per capita usage has decreased by about 33%. In addition, the new homes will have landscaping that is very efficient, and the internal fixtures will be high efficiency shower heads and faucets which will help minimize the water usage.

Please refer to Draft EIR Section 4.N, pages 4.N-30 through 4.N-42, and the City of Corona 2010 Urban Water Management Plan dated April 2012, for details on City water source and supply strategy.

Response to Comment 18-3. The comment encouraging the City to think of the current residents, and stating that once part of the CNF is destroyed and developed, you can never get it back, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-134
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 10:49 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking T
Message sent to the full City Council
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Rudy J Realo [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 10:37 AM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing ‐ REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking T Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission ‐ Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Rudy Realo and I am a resident of Corona, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and

37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I personally have hiked Skyline a number of times since 2012 as part of a weekly group that meets twice a week to hike

2.5 miles up the fire road and back, and on several occasions have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction), or simply into Tin Mine Canyon for a nature walk with many of the younger and older generations in my family. We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails.

Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Rudy J Realo
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 19
Rudy Realo
[email protected]
Response to Letter 19
Response to Comments 19-1 through 19-8. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-8 (Letter 15, David Wright).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-137
1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 1:40 PM
To: David Crook; Mike Byer ([email protected]) Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Same letter. Different person.

From: Sylvia Viayra
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 11:03 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Message sent to the full City Council
From: Georganna H [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 8:14 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Cc: [email protected]
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail

Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission ‐ Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Georganna Hemingway and I am a resident of Riverside, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and 37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.
2 REJECT the Application to pre‐zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R‐1‐7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I personally have hiked Skyline 100+ times since 2012 as part of a weekly group that meets twice a week to hike 2.5 miles up the fire road and back, and on several occasions have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction), or simply into Tin Mine Canyon for a nature walk with many of the younger and older generations in my family. We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Georganna Hemingway

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 20
Georganna Hemingway
[email protected]
Response to Letter 20
Response to Comment 20-1 through 20-8. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-8 (Letter 15, David Wright).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-140
1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 7:21 AM
To: Mike Byer ([email protected]); David Crook Subject: FW: SKYLINE First Name Last Name
Fyi.

From: Eugene Montanez
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 4:46 PM
To: Justin Henderson
Cc: Darrell Talbert; Jason Scott
Subject: Re: SKYLINE First Name Last Name
Thank you for the email, but the project you mentioned will not affect the Skyline trail in any manner.

All access will remain.

There are many rumors out there. I would encourage you to actually investigate the truth. I have lived in Corona since 1964 and have used the trail as a Boy Scout and as an adult, and feel as strongly about access to the Forest as anyone.

The property in question has never been a part of the Forest, and has been in plans of development for well over 20 years.

Please give me a call if you would like to discuss further.

Eugene Montanez
Council Member
City of Corona
951‐734‐8181 (personal office)
My name is [FIRSTNAME] [LASTNAME] and I am a resident of [CITY OF RESIDENCE], California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the Application to pre‐zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R‐1‐7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way. 2 REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I personally have [ADD PERSONAL ANECDOTE HERE OF YOUR EXPERIENCE ON SKYLINE] hiked Skyline 100+ times since 2012 as part of a weekly group that meets twice a week to hike 2.5 miles up the fire road and back, and on several occasions have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction), or simply into Tin Mine Canyon for a nature walk with many of the younger and older generations in my family. We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails.

Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Justin Henderson
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 21
Justin Henderson
Response to Letter 21
Response to Comment 21-1. This comment is a response from the City of Corona to Comments 21-2 through 21-4 from Justin Henderson. With regard to the portion of the comment stating that the project would not affect the Skyline trail in any manner, this is correct. Please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) for further discussion. With regard to the portion of the City’s response stating that the project site is has never been a part of the forest, this is not entirely incorrect. The project site is private property that is located wholly within the Cleveland National Forest (CNF), but not part of the forest’s public land. Please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Consistency with CNF LMP” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) for further discussion.

Response to Comments 21-2 through 21-4. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-8 (Letter 15, David Wright).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-143
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 5:42 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11th Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Message sent to the full city council.

From: Courtney Kasey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 3:34 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Cc: [email protected]
Subject: April 11th Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Courtney Kasey and I am a resident of Corona. I am writing as a outraged community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I have spent many 4th of July’s on the top of the hill to watch an array of firework displays, I take my children hiking to both Tin Mine and Hagador Canyon on a regular basis. I have been hiking these trails since I was in high school and CHS. I was so grateful to see the city recognize the value of trails to our city, with the water fountain and dog station at the trailhead. I was appalled when I recently learned of the plans to put more houses, puts an unnecessary burden on those who use these trails. We have already seen the trail head moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away! This will greatly impede our access to the Skyline trail. We NEED to conserve access to our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will be affected. 2 Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. I already feel that the city does so little to bring jobs that wouldn’t require me to drive to OC every day. Please don’t make it so bad, that now I can’t even hike in my own town either! I implore you to reject the applications and support what should be our community goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Courtney Kasey
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Group M Worldwide LLC and/or other members of the GroupM group of companies shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. GroupM is the global media investment management arm of WPP.

For more information on our business ethical standards and Corporate Responsibility policies please refer to WPP's website at http://www.wpp.com/WPP/About/

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 22
Courtney Kasey
[email protected]
Response to Letter 22
Response to Comments 22-1. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-7 (Letter 15, David Wright).

Response to Comment 22-2. With regard to project impacts on trail access, please see Response to Comment 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

With regard to the proposal to move the parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

Response to Comments 22-3. Please see Response to Comments 15-8 (Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the portion of the comment stating that the City does so little to bring jobs to the area, this portion of the comment is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-146
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 4:00 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Message sent to the full City Council.

From: Justin Henderson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 11:32 AM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Cc: [email protected]
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission ‐ Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is [FIRSTNAME] [LASTNAME] and I am a resident of [CITY OF RESIDENCE], California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the 2 encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands of hikers and cyclists like myself each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities.

Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Justin Henderson
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 23
Justin Henderson
[email protected]
Response to Letter 23
Response to Comments 23-1 through 23-3. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-8 (Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the proposal to move the parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-149
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 4:40 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Message sent to the full City Council.

From: Branton Lachman [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 9:45 AM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Cc: [email protected]
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Branton Lachman and I am a resident of Corona, California since 1956. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I personally have hiked Skyline two to three times a week individually and as as part of a hiking group that meets to hike 2.5 miles up the fire road and back, and on several occasions have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction), or simply into Tin Mine Canyon for a nature walk with many of the younger and older generations in my family. I have also been hiking these trails since I was a 10 year-old cub scout. We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

I have also mountain biked both the fire road and the trails. During all these activities I have observed numerous couples, families, children, running teams, biking teams, etc. enjoy the open space and natural environment provided by Skyline Hiking Trail. Not every open space needs to be developed! We can strive instead for providing world class amenities even in Corona.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. Past City Councils (particularly in the 60s through 90s) have not provided for quality of life in Corona, instead settling for low mitigation fees, warehouse sales taxes, etc. I am happy that our recent and current Councils have made significant efforts to improve quality of life in Corona such that we can become more than a commuter/bedroom community.

On behalf of the many residents who enjoy this unique natural resource available to Corona, I implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Branton Lachman

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 24
Branton Lachman
[email protected]
Response to Letter 24
Response to Comments 24-1 through 24-3. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-8 (Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the proposal to move the parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-152
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 4:29 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Message sent to the full city council.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Stephanie [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 11:40 AM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Cc: [email protected]
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing ‐ REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission ‐ Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Stephanie Lomani and I am a resident of Corona, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and

37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I personally have and still hike Skyline 100+ times with my family friends and have met new group and have been hiking with them since 2012 as part of a weekly group that meets twice a week to hike 2.5 miles up the fire road and back, and on several occasions have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction), or simply into Tin Mine Canyon for a nature walk with many of the younger and older generations in my family. We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Stephanie Lomani
Sent from my iPhone
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 25
Stephanie Lomani
[email protected]
Response to Letter 25
Response to Comments 25-1 through 25-3. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-8 (Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the proposal to move the parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-155
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 4:09 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
FYI
From: Branton Lachman [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 2:05 PM
To: Eugene Montanez
Subject: Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Hi Eugene.

Thanks for responding. Here are my (our) concerns:

Yes, Skyline Drive will still be accessible, but that is not the same as the Skyline trail system. The existing trails are all over the canyons planned for development and will be eliminated by the development.

Even if only considering the fire road and not the single track trails, the upcoming changes for parking will pose problems for many if the parking moves another 1/4 mile away from the current Foothill trail head (which is already 0.5 mile from the fire road) all the way down to Chase Drive. And that move, of course, assumes the lot does not get blocked by local residents who do not want a parking lot in that area. And even if built in the current proposed location this will mean residents will have to walk almost a full mile on paved road with houses all around just to get to the fire road.

There must be a better way that can preserve existing trails or at least locate the parking lot closer to the actual fire road. Perhaps the city could work with the county on this and even consider putting the new lot at the county gates leading into Tin Mine Canyon.

Thanks again for listening and responding and I hope you will continue to search for a more workable solution.

Take care,
Branton
On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 10:19 AM, Eugene Montanez <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you for the email, but the project you mentioned will not affect the Skyline trail in any manner.

All access will remain.

There are many rumors out there. I would encourage you to actually 2 investigate the truth. I have lived in Corona since 1964 (not as long as you:) and have used the trail as a Boy Scout and as an adult, and feel as strongly about access to
the Forest as anyone.

The property in question has never been a part of the Forest, and has been in plans of development for well over 20 years.

Please give me a call if you would like to discuss further.

Eugene Montanez
Council Member
City of Corona
951‐734‐8181 (personal office)
From: Branton Lachman <[email protected]>
Reply‐To: Branton Lachman <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 9:44 AM
To: Jason Scott <[email protected]>, Dick Haley <[email protected]>, Randy Fox <[email protected]>, Eugene Montanez <[email protected]>, Karen Spiegel <[email protected]>, Aaron Hake <[email protected]>, Nelson Nelson <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing ‐ REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 3 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. Past City Councils (particularly in the 60s through 90s) have not provided for quality of life in Corona, instead settling for low mitigation fees, warehouse sales taxes, etc. I am happy that our recent and current Councils have made significant efforts to improve quality of life in Corona such that we can become more than a commuter/bedroom community.

Thank you,
Branton Lachman
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 26
Branton Lachman
[email protected]
Response to Letter 26
Response to Comment 26-1. With regard to the “Skyline trail system”, please see Response to Comment 5- 1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

With regard to the proposal to move the parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

Response to Comment 26-2. This comment is a response from the City of Corona to Comments 26-3 through 26-5 from Branton Lachman. With regard to the portion of the comment stating that the project would not affect the Skyline trail in any manner, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) for further discussion. With regard to the portion of the City’s response stating that the project site is has never been a part of the forest, this is not entirely incorrect.

The project site is private property that is located wholly within the Cleveland National Forest (CNF), but not part of the forest’s public land. Please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Consistency with CNF LMP” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) for further discussion.

Response to Comments 26-3 through 26-5. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-8 (Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the proposal to move the parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-159
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 5:08 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
FYI
From: Patricia Realo [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 5:01 PM
To: Jason Scott
Cc: [email protected]; David Wright
Subject: Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Dear Mayor Scott:

Thank you for the reply. I realize that the trail will not be closed. But I am concerned about barriers to access (developed parking, distance to the trail, access to Mabey, Trudy, Wardlow canyons which are part of the Skyline trails system). Once Orchard Glen construction was finished near the old Skyline trailhead, hikers were shut out of that neighborhood and had to walk an additional 1/2 mile to the trailhead. Adding an additional 1/2 mile to Chase is creating a barrier to access. These are separate but related issues.

I would appreciate if you can share where I can find information on the parking proposal that you describe. Are there issues with creating developed parking near the wash basin? What happens if the residents in the Chase parking area oppose the parking proposal?
Also, it appears that the City would annex a portion of the Skyline trail fire road (as shown in the graphic at the bottom of the public hearing notice). What are the plans for that fire road once annexed? Can the City create developed parking along the fire road?
I also have enjoyed seeing some of the developments in Corona but not as they encroach on the foothills. In addition to access and parking near the forest, I have concerns that the Skyline Heights development, as well as the Arantine Hills development, will add to the existing congestion on surface streets, traffic nightmares on the 91 and 15 freeways, and the burden on our water supply. Changing the private land from Rural Residential to Low Density is under consideration and I hope you will support the rejection of this application.

Thank you for addressing my concerns above.

Best, Patricia
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 5, 2016, at 4:13 PM, Jason Scott <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Trixie,
2 I thank you for your email. The Council is aware of the popularity of the Skyline Trail; a popularity that has jumped significantly in just the last few years. The project you mention does not affect the Skyline Trail or the entrance to the trail. It is understood that development is sometimes difficult while at other time sought. The expansion of our City by private land owners is their legal right so long as they adhere to all legal requirements. City staff, Planning Commission, nor City Council cannot legal deny a private property owners desire to build and develop their land. The City would be open to a civil suit for violation of the property owner’s rights.

I have seen the City grown since I came in 1968. I’m sure you’ve heard this story before, but there was no South Corona, Sierra Del Oro, Eagle Glen, or Dos Lagos. The hills around McKinley were hills with one having the old Corona Race Track – not to be confused with the Corona Road Races around Grand Blvd in 1913, 1914 and 1916. McKinley Avenue had fields of and a fruit stand; no Costco or Home Depot and the rest. Times have changed as things do change. Some have been difficult and some have been sought.

The City is working on a parking area and a new trail head to Skyline Trail that will replace parking on Foothill Parkway once the extension of Foothill is completed in 2017. This effort is being made to provide a good parking location for those wishing to hike. I am also providing some links to trails that may be helpful to you since you have an interest.
http://www.rivcoparks.org/trails/trails-homepage/
http://www.rivcoparks.org/wp-content/custom_images/trails/Trails.pdf Again, the project will not close the access to the Skyline Trail. I do thank you for your email.

Sincerely,
Jason Scott
Corona City Council
DiscoverCorona.com
InnerCircleCorona.com

3 Right-click here to download pictures. To help pro tect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

From: trixie anderson [[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 4:02 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Cc: [email protected]
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Patricia Anderson and I am a resident of Corona, California and have lived here since 2002. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities.

I personally have hiked Skyline 100+ times since 2012 as part of a weekly group that meets twice a week to hike 2.5 miles up the fire road and back, and on several occasions have hiked 5+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction), or simply into Tin Mine Canyon for a nature walk with many of the younger and older generations in my family. We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1/2 to 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail.

Thank you,
Patricia Anderson

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 27
Patricia (Realo) Anderson
[email protected]
Response to Letter 27
Response to Comment 27-1. With regard to impacts/access to the “Skyline trail system”, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

With regard to the proposal to move the parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

Response to Comment 27-2. Please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

Response to Comment 27-3. The project would result in the annexation of a portion of the existing Skyline Trail, referred to be the commenter as the “Skyline trail fire road”, but implementation of the proposed residential development would not result in any physical changes to the fire road or potential emergency vehicle access thereto. The Skyline Trail would continue to operate as a public hiking trail and, when necessary, potentially a fire access road once the proposed project is implemented. The provision of public trail parking along the Skyline Trail in the vicinity of the project site is not associated with the project and is not germane to the analyses presented in the Draft EIR. Thus, no further response in this regard is warranted.

Response to Comment 27-4. With regard to the traffic impacts of the project, please see Response to comment 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin). As clarification, as indicated on page 4.M-34 of the Draft EIR, it is anticipated that the project would not be developed until the Foothill Parkway Extension Project has been completed. As of late 2016, the Foothill Parkway Extension has been completed and is operational.

With regard to water supply, please see Responses to Comments 9-8 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Sangita Patel) and 18-2 (Letter 18, Kyle Ericson).

Responses to Comments 27-5 and 27-7. These comments are responses from the City of Corona to Comments 27-8 through 27-10 from Patricia (Realo) Anderson. With regard to impacts/access to Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) for further discussion. With regard to the project site representing private property that is designated for urban development, please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Development at the UrbanRural Interface” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) for further discussion. With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock) for further discussion.

Response to Comments 27-8 through 27-10. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-8 (Letter 15, David Wright).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-164
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
With regard to the proposal to move the parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-165
1 David Crook
From: David Wright <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 4:29 PM
To: Jason Scott
Subject: Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail & neighboring canyons!
Hi Jason,
Thank you for your reply. You are the first to reply, although I have heard from the developer and plan to meet with him on Friday.

I have a couple of pertinent points I would like to share, but have to be brief or I will miss my hike tonight :) 1st - Skyline Drive is just the fire road, but it is being referenced as though it represents the entirety of the trail system in that area. There are dozens of great hiking and biking trails in the canyons surrounding Skyline Drive, and the Skyline Heights project will eliminate most/all of them in the Trudy, Mabey, and (part of) Wardlow canyons.
2nd - I do understand that private owners generally have the right to do what they wish with their property, and truth be told I am typically more inclined to side with a property-owners rights over excessive regulation or government control. But as you said, provided legal requirements are adhered to - which I think is a debatable point in this matter.

I run a hiking group that actually hikes in the Skyline area every Tue & Thu night at 6 pm and would welcome you or anyone else to come out and see the areas that will be directly impacted by this development. It is a beautiful area and has been hiked/biked by the public for decades. Most people I have spoken to did not even know it was private land, and absolutely no one had any idea it was about to be developed.

Anyhow, I need to get on the road to Corona. If you want more details or would like to take the conversation deeper, please feel free to let me know.

Thank you again for reaching out,
David
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Jason Scott <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello David,
I thank you for your email. The Council is aware of the popularity of the Skyline Trail; a popularity that has jumped significantly in just the last few years. The project you mention does not affect the Skyline Trail or the entrance to the trail. It is understood that development is sometimes difficult while at other time sought. The expansion of our City by private land owners is their legal right so long as they adhere to all legal requirements. City staff, Planning Commission, nor City Council cannot legal deny a private property owners desire to build and develop their land. The City would be open to a civil suit for violation of the property owner’s rights. 2 I have seen the City grown since I came in 1968. I’m sure you’ve heard this story before, but there was no South Corona, Sierra Del Oro, Eagle Glen, or Dos Lagos. The hills around McKinley were hills with one having the old Corona Race Track – not to be confused with the Corona Road Races around Grand Blvd in 1913, 1914 and 1916. McKinley Avenue had fields of and a fruit stand; no Costco or Home Depot and the rest. Times have changed as things do change. Some have been difficult and some have been sought.

Sincerely,
Jason Scott
Corona City Council
DiscoverCorona.com
InnerCircleCorona.com
Right-click here to download pictures. To help pro tect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

3 From: David Wright [[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 10:18 AM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Cc: [email protected]; David Wright
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail & neighboring canyons!
Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I personally have hiked Skyline and surrounding trails hundreds of times in the past few years. I lead a hiking group that have AT LEAST two events every week, year round, exploring the Skyline trail system, including: Hagador, Tin Mine, Trudy, and Mabey canyons. Hiking here has literally changed my life on so many levels, and as a group leader I have seen the impact it has had on dozens of others as well. I have also seen usage of the trails increase steadily over the past couple of years 4 and I would hate to see anything change that. A healthier and more active community benefits us all. I was very disappointed that only homeowners within a 500 foot radius of the Skyline Heights project were notified. At the very least there should have been public notice somewhere along the trail so the people enjoying one of the greatest benefits of living in Corona could have a voice! Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
David Wright
1359 Williamsburg Ln
Corona, CA 92882

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 28
David Wright
1359 Williamsburg Ln.

Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
Response to Letter 28
Response to Comment 28-1. Please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

Response to Comment 28-2. Please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Development at the Urban-Rural Interface” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service). Also, the project would comply with all CEQA, City of Corona, Riverside County, CNF, and other applicable legal requirements.

Response to Comment 28-3. The comment concerning the commenter’s hiking group, and that the area has been hiked/biked by the public for decades, are noted and will be provided to the decision makers.

However, as these comments do not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to the comments that people did not know that the project site was private land or was about to be developed, please see Response to Comment 15-7 (Letter 15, David Wright).

Responses to Comments 28-4 through 28-6. These comments are responses from the City of Corona to Comments 28-7 through 28-9 from David Wright. With regard to impacts/access to Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) for further discussion. With regard to the project site representing private property that is designated for urban development, please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Development at the Urban-Rural Interface” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) for further discussion. With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock) for further discussion.

Response to Comments 28-7 through 28-9. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-8 (Letter 15, David Wright).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-170
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 10:28 AM
To: Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11th Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
FYI
From: Eugene Montanez
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 9:37 AM
To: Courtney Kasey
Cc: Darrell Talbert; Jason Scott
Subject: Re: April 11th Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail I am not familiar with that trail and obviously if it is indeed on private property there are many other issues such as liability.

But we also have another access area, close to Paseo Grande that will become available, once Foothill Parkway is completed.

That would actually allow LEGAL access and more trails.

Thanks again
Eugene Montanez
Council Member
City of Corona
951‐734‐8181 (personal office)
From: Courtney Kasey <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, April 4, 2016 at 6:15 PM
To: Eugene Montanez <[email protected]>
Cc: Darrell Talbert <[email protected]>, Jason Scott <[email protected]> Subject: RE: April 11th Planning Commission Public Hearing ‐ REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Thank you for your quick response, and while the specific trails of Tin Mine and Hagador Canyon might not be affected, others would. Looking at the proposed plans online, a trail referred to by local mountain bikers as, Block Trail, would be demolished. This trail was built (technically on the private property in question) over 20 years ago, but has been a well maintained biking trail ever since. In addition, the new housing would absolutely impact parking and traffic, not just at the Skyline trailhead, but within the city and getting in/out of the city as so many of us have to do 5 days a week.

See you on the 11th.

Sincerely,
Courtney Kasey
From: Eugene Montanez [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 4:31 PM
To: Courtney Kasey <[email protected]>
2 Cc: Darrell Talbert <[email protected]>; Jason Scott <[email protected]> Subject: Re: April 11th Planning Commission Public Hearing ‐ REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail

Thank you for the email, but the project you mentioned will not affect the Skyline trail in any manner.

All access will remain.

The property in question has never been a part of the Forest, and has been in plans of development for well over 20 years.

Please give me a call if you would like to discuss further.

Eugene Montanez
Council Member
City of Corona
951‐734‐8181 (personal office)
From: Courtney Kasey <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, April 4, 2016 at 3:33 PM
To: Jason Scott <[email protected]>, Dick Haley <[email protected]>, Randy Fox <[email protected]>, Eugene Montanez <[email protected]>, Karen Spiegel <[email protected]>, Aaron Hake <[email protected]>, Nelson Nelson <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: April 11th Planning Commission Public Hearing ‐ REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the 3 encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands of cyclists and hikers, like myself, each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities. In addition, our schools host 100 mile club events there, as well as the valuable local history to preserve.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. I already feel that the city does so little to bring jobs that wouldn’t require me to drive to OC every day. Please don’t make it so bad, that now I can’t even hike in my own town either! I implore you to reject the applications and support what should be our community goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Courtney Kasey

Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Group M Worldwide LLC and/or other members of the GroupM group of companies shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. GroupM is the global media investment management arm of WPP.

For more information on our business ethical standards and Corporate Responsibility policies please refer to WPP's website at http://www.wpp.com/WPP/About/ Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Group M Worldwide LLC and/or other members of the GroupM group of companies shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. GroupM is the global media investment management arm of WPP.

For more information on our business ethical standards and Corporate Responsibility policies please refer to WPP's website at http://www.wpp.com/WPP/About/

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 29
Courtney Kasey
[email protected]
Response to Letter 29
Response to Comment 29-1. This comment is a response from the City of Corona to Comment 29-2 from Courtney Kasey; please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and OpenSpace District).

Response to Comment 29-2. With regard to the impacts of the proposed project on trails, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

With regard to the traffic impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, PetitionMoratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).

Response to Comment 29-3. These comments are a responses from the City of Corona to Comments 29-4 through 29-6 from Courtney Kasey. With regard to impacts/access to Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) for further discussion.

With regard to the City’s response stating that the project site has never been a part of the forest, please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Consistency with CNF LMP” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) for further discussion.

Response to Comments 29-4 through 29-6. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-8 (Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the proposal to move the parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-174
1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 10:26 AM
To: David Crook; Mike Byer ([email protected]) Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
From: Sylvia Viayra
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 10:21 AM
To: Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
FYI
From: Eugene Montanez
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 10:12 AM
To: Megan Gifford
Cc: Darrell Talbert; Jason Scott
Subject: Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Thank you for the email, but the project you mentioned will not affect the Skyline trail in any manner.

All access will remain.

The property in question has never been a part of the Forest, and has been in plans of development for well over 20 years.

Please give me a call if you would like to discuss further.

Eugene Montanez
Council Member
City of Corona
951‐734‐8181 (personal office)
From: Megan Gifford <m‐[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 10:10 AM
To: Jason Scott <[email protected]>, Dick Haley <[email protected]>, Randy Fox <[email protected]>, Eugene Montanez <[email protected]>, Karen Spiegel <[email protected]>, Aaron Hake <[email protected]>, Nelson Nelson <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing ‐ REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail 2 Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission ‐ Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Khoa Vu and I am a resident of Corona, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

I personally have, enjoyably and with momentum, hiked Skyline 100+ times since 2012 as part of a weekly group that meets twice a week to hike 2.5 miles up the fire road and back, and on several occasions have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction), or simply into Tin Mine Canyon for a nature walk with many of the younger and older generations in my family.

We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling 3 groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Khoa Vu

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 30
Khoa Vu
Response to Letter 30
Response to Comment 30-1. These comments are a responses from the City of Corona to Comments 30-2 through 30-4 from Khoa Vu. With regard to impacts/access to Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District). With regard to the City’s response stating that the project site has never been a part of the forest, please see Response to Comment 1- 3 under “Consistency with CNF LMP” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) for further discussion.

Response to Comments 30-2 through 30-4. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-8 (Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the proposal to move the parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-178
1 David Crook
From: Nelson Nelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 8:56 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: RE: Skyline/Hagador Construction Issue
Good morning Ms. Parker,
Thank for including me in your email to City Council and the many pictures and maps of Hagador Trail. These do convey how beautiful the canyon is and why it is a local treasure that must be preserved. I do know that the Cleveland National Forest rangers are very proud of Hagador Canyon and the trail system through the forest property. You are very welcome and encouraged to attend the Planning Commission Meeting on Monday night where the Skyline Heights development will be discussed. However, I would like to clarify that this new development does not affect access to Hagador Canyon, Skyline Trail, Skyline Drive or the Cleveland National Forest in any way. We will provide exhibits that will show where the future development is located in relation to these trails so everyone can see there is no impact on the existing trails. But the focus of the meeting will be on the Skyline Heights development rather than the trails to Cleveland National Forest.

As there is great interest in the trails and providing adequate access to Cleveland National Forest, the City will conduct a Study Session in the near future to discuss this issue at length including various suggestions and options being considered. There are pros and cons to nearly every option that has been suggested so we need to thoroughly research every alternative to determine the best options for the community. The forum of the Study Session will allow us to discuss everything with input from the community and direction from the City Council. We will announce the date and time of the Study Session when this issue is on the agenda well in advance to ensure everyone interested has the opportunity to participate in person or by sending in their suggestions, comments or concerns prior to the meeting.

You may always contact me directly if you have questions regarding the Skyline Heights development or other issues of concern regarding the trails.

Best regards,
Nelson D. Nelson, P.E.

Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Corona
(951) 817‐5765
From: Christy Parker, MSOL [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 11:53 PM
To: Karen Spiegel; Dick Haley; Eugene Montanez; Jason Scott; Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson; Randy Fox
Subject: Skyline/Hagador Construction Issue
Hi Everyone,
Regarding the meeting happening on Monday about construction on private property near Skyline, I wanted to share some information that many of you may not be aware of. First, most of you are probably not aware that the area is actually called Hagador Canyon and that there is a trail across the field where construction it appears would take place. The trail is found by hopping over the Skyline drive railing instead of turning to the right up toward the tin mine and skyline trails.
2 I am adding maps and pictures to help you see the issue. This particular trail is extremely beautiful with a stream that runs along it and it actually has a large sign in front of it put there by the forestry service. It says "Hagador Canyon Watershed Trail". It is more beautiful than the other hikes and is tree covered to provide shade. I take many groups and family there several times every week.

The issue I would like cleared up before anyone makes maps of houses and construction, is to take a look at the trail that runs along the side of the hills to the Hagador Canyon Trail. I and many others would like that accessible, and would be quite miserable if it weren't. It is our escape within the city and brings us much mental, emotional, spiritual and physical health and peace of mind. (Please see maps & pictures attached or posted below) I will be sending pictures of the trail and animal life in a 2nd email.

Sincerely,
Christy Parker, MSOL
Owner
Emotional Ethics
[email protected]
951-206-8824
www.emotionalethics.com
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 31
Christy Parker
Emotional Ethics
[email protected]
[email protected]
Response to Letter 31
Responses to Comments 31-1 and 31-2. These comments are a response from the City of Corona to Comments 31-3 through 31-5 from Christy Parker. With regard to the impacts of the project on trails within the annexation area, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

Response to Comment 31-3 through 31-5. The information provided regarding Hagador Canyon, the Hagador Canyon Watershed, and what the commenter states is a designated trail named Hagador Canyon Watershed Trail, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. Please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-181
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 10:31 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Skyline Hiking Trail area development encroachment Message sent to mayor
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 7:51 PM
To: Jason Scott
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Skyline Hiking Trail area development encroachment I do not live in Corona, but it’s neighbor Norco. But I see there is a proposal for more development of almost 300 new houses in the hills.

Realistically I know stopping “progress” is a futile exercise , but there should be no reason that as development grows ALSO should a desire and effort to save, keep, and maintain open areas for recreation, wildlife habitat, etc. . As we all know once these natural open areas are gone, they are never coming back.

So I can not attend the City Council meeting, but I hope you will keep this opinion, and as I’m sure many others of like mind’s opinion in mind while contemplating your decision .

K.Zimmermann

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 32
K. Zimmerman
Response to Letter 32
Response to Comment 32-1. The comment expressing awareness of the proposed project is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to the open space impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 1-4 under “Land Use and Open Space” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

With regard to the biological resources impacts of the project, the Draft EIR evaluated impacts on biological resources in Section 4.C, Biological Resources, with supporting data provided in Appendix D, Biological Resources Assessment, Surveys, and Jurisdictional Delineation. An updated analysis regarding biological resources was also subsequently provided in Section 4.C of the RDEIR, with updated Biological Resources Assessment, Surveys, and Jurisdictional Delineation provided in Appendix A of the RDEIR. As indicated on Draft EIR page 4.C-50 and RDEIR page 4.C-76, project impacts on biological resources would be less than significant with adherence to applicable regulations and implementation of the proposed project design features and mitigation measures.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-183
1 David Crook
From: Terri Manuel <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 4:42 PM
To: Joanne Coletta
Cc: David Crook
Subject: FW: Public Hearing on April 11, 2016
Joanne, let me know if this needs to be folded into any report that I’m doing or just collected for the final responses with the EIR.

From: Carol Lazar [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 4:26 PM
To: Terri Manuel
Subject: Fwd: Public Hearing on April 11, 2016
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:

From: Carol Lazar <[email protected]>
Date: April 6, 2016 at 4:22:53 PM PDT
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Public Hearing on April 11, 2016
I just received the notice and will be unable to attend; however, would like my comments to be recorded by your Commission. I believe there should be a moratorium on development in Corona. The residents of Corona and the surrounding areas are going through hell with the traffic improvements that are now underway. These improvements will be negated when the new development is complete and we will be back to square one. The City needs to be in front of development with transportation improvements. I would hate for us to have to go through this nightmare again in a few years.

Carol a. Lazar
1763 Gleason
Corona, 92882
Sent from my iPad
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 33
Carol Lazar
1763 Gleason
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
Response to Letter 33
Response to Comment 33-1. The comments requesting that commenter’s comments be recorded by the Planning Commission, that a moratorium should be placed on development in the City, and that the residents of the City and the surrounding area “going through hell” with the traffic improvements now underway, are noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as these comments do not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to the traffic impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, PetitionMoratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-185
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 10:50 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Protect Cleveland Natl. Forest foothill areas. NO HOUSING!!! FYI
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 4:49 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake Subject: Protect Cleveland Natl. Forest foothill areas. NO HOUSING!!! Don't you DARE destroy the scenic trail areas near the Cleveland National Forest by the Skyline Trail and Foothill areas for more housing! Enough is enough and you are purposely destroying highly prized green spaces and recreational spaces that your citizens (who vote!) depend on for solace and happiness. MANY of us are not happy now that the word is out and we WILL PROTECT our beloved lands from your greed and profit‐seeking mentality. Our voices will be heard all over the region and we are ready to employ our marketing and communications team to help with our counter to this atrocity. Don't put your legacy on the line... we WILL BE HEARD. LOUDLY.

Regards,
One of 10,000 ORANGE COUNTY hikers who love our trails in Corona and plan on continuing enjoying them! January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 34
[email protected]
Response to Letter 34
Response to Comment 34-1. The request that the City not dare destroy the scenic trail areas near the CNF and Skyline Trail is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard project impacts on open space, aesthetics, and recreational spaces (e.g., trails), please see Responses to Comments 1-4 under “Land Use and Open Space” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service), 1-4 under “”Scenic Integrity (Letter 1, United States Forest Service), and 5-1 (Riverside County Regional Parks and Open-Space District), respectively.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-187
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 10:54 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
FYI
From: Kate Panepinto [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 4:23 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Cc: [email protected]
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Kate Panepinto and I am a resident of Riverside, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I am an avid trail runner, and the climb up Skyline is one of the best local runs I have found since moving to Riverside. The trails there are absolutely beautiful, and they deserve to be protected for both present and future enjoyment. A focus on health and wellness in our communities is being touted by politicians throughout Riverside County, and this focus should include preservation of our outdoor areas. Safe, convenient access to our outdoor resources is a necessity. I urge you to not let this be spoiled by development.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Kate Panepinto

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 35
Kate Panepinto
[email protected]
Response to Letter 35
Response to Comments 35-1 through 35-3. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6(Letter 15, David Wright).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-190
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 10:56 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Skyline Trail Housing
FYI
From: Jorge [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 4:02 PM
To: Jason Scott
Cc: Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Subject: Skyline Trail Housing
Hi Corona leadership team,
Why is our Mach1 Mud run put on hold for water use, when thousands of houses keep being built? I understand developers have the right to use their land as they legally see fit. But I hope the city is not catering to them in a way that sells out our natural resources. It just seems sometimes like older neighborhoods get neglected and have lower performing schools and businesses as a result. I get frustrated recycling and conserving water, even driving less in order to live a greener lifestyle when we jump on the chance to add more traffic, congestion & pollution. The city does not even have a battery recycling program, and don't get me started on all the food carts, seems like our public servants are already stretched too thin? I would say getting our ducks more in order are is important before adding more ducks.

Corona is such a great unique city, I'd hate to have it become another cookie cutter town.

I hope you all use the Skyline Trail so that you know what we are giving up with each generation so we preserve as much as we can for future generations.

Jorge Loutzenhiser
Quality Assurance/IT Dept.

MillworX Precision Machining, Inc.

Ph: (951) 371-2683 x 315
_________
_|__o__|_
_|_(\)_|_
d‐b
This e-mail may contain proprietary information and/or copyright material. This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee only. Any unauthorized use may be unlawful. If you receive this e-mail by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software.

Information contained in and/or attached to this document may be subject to export control regulations of the European Community, USA, or other countries. Each recipient of this document is responsible to ensure that usage and/or transfer of any information contained in this document complies with all relevant export control regulations. If you are in any doubt about the export control restrictions that apply to this information, please contact the sender immediately.

This transmittal and any attached documents may contain technical data, the use of which may be restricted by the U.S. Arms Export Control Act and/or the Export Administration Act. By accepting such data, the recipient agrees to comply with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and/or the Export Administration Regulations, as applicable.

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 36
Jorge Loutzenhiser
Quality Assurance/IT Dept.

MillworkX Precision Machining, Inc.
[email protected]
Response to Letter 36
Response to Comment 36-1. With regard to project impacts on water supply, biological resources, traffic, public services (including schools), and infrastructure, please see the following responses to comments:
• Water Supply: 9-8 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Sangita Patel); • Biological Resources: 32-1 (Letter 32, K. Zimmerman); • Traffic: 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin); • Public Services (including schools): 15-7 (Letter 15, David Wright); and • Infrastructure: 9-10 Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Ronald R Papp).

With regard to project pollution impacts, the air quality and greenhouse gas emission (GHG) impacts of the project are evaluated in Sections 4.B, Air Quality, and 4.F, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, respectively, with supporting data provided in Appendix C, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report. As indicated on pages 4.B-37 and 4.F-21, respectively, with implementation of the proposed project design features, the project would result in less than significant construction and operational air quality and GHG emission impacts.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-192
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 10:56 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: [BULK] April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Importance: Low
FYI
From: Khris Gaines [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 4:01 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Subject: [BULK] April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Importance: Low
Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I personally know lots of people that have hiked in this area of Skyline 100+ times since 2012 as part of a weekly group that meets twice a week to hike 2.5 miles up the fire road and back, and on several occasions have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction), or simply into Tin Mine Canyon for a nature walk with many of the younger and older generations in my family. We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Although I can only join the group on the weekends as I live in Los Angeles, this is super important and the best cause for action ever!
Thank you,
Khris Gaines
County of Los Angeles
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 37
Khris Gaines
[email protected]
Response to Letter 37
Response to Comments 37-1 through 37-3. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6(Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnne Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-195
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 10:58 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: SUBJECT: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
FYI
From: Eric [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 3:53 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Subject: SUBJECT: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Eric Budinko and I am a resident of Alta Loma, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I personally have hiked, mountain biked, and ridden dual-sport motorcycle via Skyline . We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Eric Budinko

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 38
Eric Budinko
[email protected]
Response to Letter 38
Response to Comments 38-1 through 38-3. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6(Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnne Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-198
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 11:14 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
FYI
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Stephanie [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 3:21 PM
To: Jason Scott
Subject: Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing ‐ REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Thank you for your reply but I still oppose allowing the properties to be built on. It is home to a mass amount of wild life that needs to be preserved and protected. The new home owners along with the project will destroy that and has already done. In addition, to the animals, hikers who love and know Skyline already know how the newest homes have already pushed us away to Foothill. Once the Foothill road is fully connected to Green River and completed where will the hikers go to park? Do you have plans to reassure the new home owners will not affect the hikes right to be able to go into the mountains and still be able to enjoy the peace that is there now? There will be many questions to come and I am not convinced that Skyline will still be accessible to the public. I grew up in Greenriver for 15 years and the trails there have been blocked off and destroyed by construction losing access to all previous trails. As it was not as known as Skyline it is no longer available to the public and now being trampled over. Broke my heart to pieces to see such chaos and no voices to save it. I am not for this project my answer is no to it.

Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 6, 2016, at 1:45 PM, Jason Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Hello Ms. Lomani,
>
> I thank you for your email. The Council is aware of the popularity of the Skyline Trail; a popularity that has jumped significantly in just the last few years. The project you mention does not affect the Skyline Trail or the entrance to the trail. It is understood that development is sometimes difficult while at other time sought. The expansion of our City by private land owners is their legal right so long as they adhere to all legal requirements. City staff, Planning Commission, nor City Council cannot legal deny a private property owners desire to build and develop their land. The City would be open to a civil suit for violation of the property owner’s rights. >
> I have seen the City grown since I came in 1968. I’m sure you’ve heard this story before, but there was no South Corona, Sierra Del Oro, Eagle Glen, or Dos Lagos. The hills around McKinley were hills with one having the old Corona Race Track – not to be confused with the Corona Road Races around Grand Blvd in 1913, 1914 and 1916. McKinley Avenue had fields of and a fruit stand; no Costco or Home Depot and the rest. Times have changed as things do change.

Some have been difficult and some have been sought.
>
> The City is working on a parking area and a new trail head to Skyline Trail that will replace parking on Foothill Parkway once the extension of Foothill is completed in 2017. This effort is being made to provide a good parking location for those wishing to hike. I am also providing some links to trails that may be helpful to you since you have an interest. 2 >
> http://www.rivcoparks.org/trails/trails‐homepage/
>
> http://www.rivcoparks.org/wp‐content/custom_images/trails/Trails.pdf >
> Again, the project will not close the access to the Skyline Trail. I do thank you for your email. >
> Sincerely,
>
> Jason Scott
> Corona City Council
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Stephanie [[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 11:39 AM
> To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen > Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing ‐ REJECT > Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
>
> Mayor Jason Scott
> Vice Mayor Dick Haley
> City Council Member Randy Fox
> City Council Member Eugene Montanez
> City Council Member Karen Spiegel
> City Treasurer Aaron Hake
> Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
>
> Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission ‐ Applications >
> Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:
>
> My name is Stephanie Lomani and I am a resident of Corona, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:
>
> REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.
>
> REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and

37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.
>
3 > REJECT the Application to pre‐zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R‐1‐7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way. >
> REJECT the Application to subdivide approximately 271 acres into 292 > single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaping located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way. >
> I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands of hikers and cyclists like myself each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities. >
> I personally have and still hike Skyline 100+ times with my family friends and have met new group and have been hiking with them since 2012 as part of a weekly group that meets twice a week to hike 2.5 miles up the fire road and back, and on several occasions have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction), or simply into Tin Mine Canyon for a nature walk with many of the younger and older generations in my family. We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected. >
> Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Stephanie Lomani
>
> Sent from my iPhone

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 39
Stephanie Lomani
[email protected]
Response to Letter 39
Response to Comment 39-1. The comment expressing opposition to the project is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. With regard to the impacts of the project on biological resources, please see Response to Comment 32-1 (Letter 32, K. Zimmerman). With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnne Murdock). With regard to trail access, please see Response to Comment 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

Response to Comments 39-2 through 39-4. These comments are a response from the City of Corona to Comments 39-5 through 39-7 from Stephanie Lomani. With regard to impacts/access to Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) for further discussion. With regard to the project site representing private property that is designated for urban development, please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Development at the Urban-Rural Interface” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) for further discussion. With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

Response to Comments 39-5 through 39-7. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6(Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnne Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-202
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 11:36 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
FYI
From: Imdad Yusufaly [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 9:12 AM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Cc: [email protected]
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

I, Imdad N.. Yusufaly, started my neurology practice in affiliation with Corona Regional Medical Center in 1992, and have made Corona my home ever since. I have been using the Skyline Hiking Trail for the last 20 odd years and have only seen a steady increase in folks using the trail; this is good for the health of our community. On a personal level, I have used these hills to train for expeditions around the world (summit of Elbrus, Everest Base camp, summit of Kilimanjaro, volcanoes of Ecuador, Aconcagua to name a few).

I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I urge you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities 2 and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Imdad N. Yusufaly
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 40
Imdad Yusufaly
[email protected]
Response to Letter 40
Response to Comment 40-1. The comment regarding the commenter’s use of the Skyline Trail is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, because this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 40-2. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6(Letter 15, David Wright).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-205
1 David Crook
From: Craig & Doll <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 5:57 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Request for issue to be raised an email to be read to the Corona Planning Commission during April 11 public meeting
Dear Planning Commission,
I respectfully request that my email be read to the planning commission during their public meeting on April

11. I am writing to request that the proposed parking lot on West Chase Drive providing access to Skyline drive be canceled and not developed further. We live on the opposite side of the street from the proposed parking lot and we are very concerned about the impact that additional foot and street traffic will bring to the neighborhood.

We have lived here for almost 6 years and have been frustrated in the lack of maintenance on the street, the disregard for property and unending flow of liter by the visitors who come to travel up Skyline, the drug and alcohol use along this section of Skyline, the safety issues associated with the neighborhood, and the total disregard for the speed limit. Having additional traffic will only make these problems worse.

The community seems to consider this area a waste area. Every summer the weeds are waist high and every wind storm, there are palm fronds all over the road that stay there until we, to local residents, remove them ourselves. The addition of more maintenance demands that will result from a parking lot opens us up to fallout of additional maintenance neglect.

If you drive along Chase, you will notice that most of the mailboxes are made of reinforced material. This is because there is an unending stream of abuse to the mailboxes. We have had baseball bat parties knocking over mail boxes and a constant flow of damage to the mailbox since we moved in. The only mail box that is currently mounted on a pole was push over in February. I stood it back up. The next day, it was run over by a car and crushed. I replaced the mailbox and pole that weekend. The next week, somebody pushed the new mailbox off the pole and left it hanging. If we take the current foot traffic and now add more, who is going to pay for the property damage? The residents?
There is not a day that goes by that we are not out on the street picking up trash that the current foot traffic discards: drink cups, water bottles, beer bottles, snack wrappers, … People drop bags of garbage in the unmaintained city side of the street. Of course it sits there until one of the residents picks it up. Shall we add litter management for another parking lot full of cars to the resident's responsibility? 2 Our family particularly enjoys walking up Skyline as it is generally a nice walk. However, there have been several instances that we pass groups of people being loud and disrespectful, smoking marijuana, and using alcohol. This only further concerns the local residents if we attract additional people along this section.

If you drive by, you may notice that all the residents have large dogs. Even with the current foot traffic, we are concerned about our own safety. The common theme is not because we want to intimidate the joggers, but because there is enough traffic that we already feel a need to protect ourselves and our property.

With the current traffic, we have a continual flow of cars and motor cycles that race through the neighborhood, revving their engines during the day and the night. The posted speed limit is 25, but the only people who respect the speed limit are the residents. The street is very narrow and the curb is very short.

With this mix, it is already a safety hazard. I would be interested to see the section of the traffic study that considers how the pedestrian safety will be impacted.

I appreciate your consideration with regards to the current residents who oppose the construction of the parking lot and the additional traffic that will result. I ask that you please oppose the project before it further acerbates an already difficult maintenance and safety situation.

Thank you,
Craig Johnson
1400 W Chase Drive
Corona, CA 92882
--
Craig Johnson
Imagine the difference you could make. Make the difference in a way only you can.

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 41
Craig Johnson
1400 W. Chase Drive
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
Response to Letter 41
Response to Comment 41-1. Please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

Response to Comment 41-2. The comments concerning existing safety hazards along the street system in the vicinity of the project site is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to how pedestrian safety would be impacted under the project, the Draft EIR addresses this issue in Section 4.M, Transportation, with supporting data provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) in Appendix K. As indicated on page 4.M-36, the project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. As indicated on page 4.M-39, the project would provide sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians consistent with typical residential standards. In addition, the proposed traffic signals on Foothill Parkway would provide protected crossings to accommodate pedestrians, as required by the City at signalized intersections.

Response to Comment 41-3. The comment expressing opposition to the project is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. With regard to the parking lot and associated traffic, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-208
1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 10:26 AM
To: David Crook; Mike Byer ([email protected]) Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
From: Sylvia Viayra
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 10:21 AM
To: Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
FYI
From: Eugene Montanez
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 10:12 AM
To: Megan Gifford
Cc: Darrell Talbert; Jason Scott
Subject: Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Thank you for the email, but the project you mentioned will not affect the Skyline trail in any manner.

All access will remain.

The property in question has never been a part of the Forest, and has been in plans of development for well over 20 years.

Please give me a call if you would like to discuss further.

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

Thank you,
Khoa Vu

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 42
Khoa Vu
Response to Letter 42
Response to Comment 42-1. This comment is a response from the City of Corona to Comments 42-2 and 42-3 from Khoa Vu.

With regard to the portion of the comment stating that the project would not affect the Skyline trail in any manner, this is correct. Please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) for further discussion.

With regard to the portion of the City’s response stating that the project site is has never been a part of the forest, this is not entirely incorrect. The project site is private property that is located wholly within the Cleveland National Forest (CNF). Please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Consistency with CNF LMP” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) for further discussion.

Response to Comments 42-2 and 42-3. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6(Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnne Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-212
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 10:28 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
FYI
From: Erika Hernandez [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 10:20 AM
To: Jason Scott
Subject: Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Thank you for taking the time to reply to my concern.

Erika
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Scott <[email protected]>
To: Erika Hernandez <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Apr 7, 2016 7:38 pm
Subject: Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Hello Erika,
I thank you for your email. The Council is aware of the popularity of the Skyline Trail; a popularity that has jumped significantly in just the last few years. The project you mention does not affect the Skyline Trail or the entrance to the trail. It is understood that development is sometimes difficult while at other time sought. The expansion of our City by private land owners is their legal right so long as they adhere to all legal requirements. City staff, Planning Commission, nor City Council cannot legal deny a private property owners desire to build and develop their land. The City would be open to a civil suit for violation of the property owner’s rights.

The City is working on a parking area and a new trail head to Skyline Trail that will replace parking on Foothill Parkway once the extension of Foothill is completed in 2017. This effort is being made to provide a good parking location for those wishing to hike. I am also providing some links to trails that may be helpful to you since you have an interest. http://www.rivcoparks.org/trails/trails-homepage/
http://www.rivcoparks.org/wp-content/custom_images/trails/Trails.pdf Again, the project will not close the access to the Skyline Trail. I do thank you for your email.

Sincerely,
Jason Scott
Corona City Council
On Apr 7, 2016, at 3:50 PM, Erika Hernandez <[email protected]> wrote:

Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
2 City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Erika Hernandez and I am a resident of Ontario, California. I am writing as a concerned citizen that hikes the mentioned trails and ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I personally have hiked Skyline many times since 2013 as part of a weekly group that meets twice a week to hike 2.5 miles up the fire road and back, and on several occasions have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction), or simply into Tin Mine Canyon for a nature walk with many of the younger and older generations in my family. We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Erika Hernandez
626-384-0502
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 43
Erika Hernandez
[email protected]
Response to Letter 43
Response to Comment 43-1. The comment thanking the City for replying to the commenter’s April 11, 2016 e-mail containing Comments 43-5 through 43-7 is noted and will be provided to the decision makers.

However, because this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is required.

Responses to Comment 43-2 and 43-4. These comments are a response from the City of Corona to Comments 43-5 through 43-7 from Erika Hernandez. With regard to impacts/access to Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) for further discussion. With regard to the project site representing private property that is designated for urban development, please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Development at the Urban-Rural Interface” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) for further discussion. With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

Response to Comments 43-5 through 43-7. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6(Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnne Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-215
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 8:36 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Message sent to the full City Council.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: michelle phillips [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 9:17 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson; [email protected]
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing ‐ REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission ‐ Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Michelle Phillips and I am a resident of Corona, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and

37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

My son personally hikes / runs Skyline 100+ times since 2012 as part of a weekly group that meets twice a week to hike

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Michelle Phillips
Sent from my iPhone

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 44
Michelle Phillips
[email protected]
Response to Letter 44
Response to Comments 44-1 through 44-3. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6(Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnne Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-218
1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 1:33 PM
To: David Crook; Mike Byer ([email protected]) Subject: FW: Public Comment on Draft EIR for Skyline Heights Development Actual comment on the EIR.

From: Terri Manuel
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 12:28 PM
To: Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Public Comment on Draft EIR for Skyline Heights Development From: patricia realo [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 12:11 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson; Terri Manuel Cc: David Wright
Subject: Public Comment on Draft EIR for Skyline Heights Development Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Planning Manager Terri Manuel
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, Planning Commissioners, City Treasurer, Public Works Director and Planning Manager:

I am providing to you my written comments on the draft Environmental Impact Report for the Skyline Heights development.

Public Notification
I became aware of today’s public hearing from a fellow hiker. We heard public notice hearings had been posted and I found one, but it was 120 yards away from the Skyline trailhead, in front of the construction zone. So I went online to read the 662 page draft EIR. It’s a massive document and it requires a great deal of time to read, to understand and to appropriately vet the Skyline Heights development and its impact on our community, and its impact on a unique and valued natural resource that we have here in Corona which is our Skyline hiking trails. I speak for many residents who have asked for an extension of time for public comment.

2 Aesthetics
You could take away from the EIR that the trail itself will not be altered. But not so fast… the report says that Skyline Heights will permanently alter views of scenic resources and the visual character or quality of the site.

The development would replace views of undeveloped foothills with residential homes and manufactured graded slopes. This is significant and unavoidable. There will be damage to viewshed from the Skyline trails which is enjoyed by hundreds of people daily. Recreationists visiting Cleveland National Forest will permanently lose views of existing undeveloped foothills.

Biological resources
We are users of the Skyline trails but we are also stewards. The EIR describes 6.17 acres of riparian and riverine habitat. This habitat is home to burrowing owls, and other sensitive, migratory and nesting birds. This very interaction with wildlife, whether it be rattlesnakes, coyotes, frogs, this is all part of an experience that is enjoyed and shared by recreationists. The development proposes to mitigate damage (destruction really) of this habitat by a combination of off- and on-site mitigation measures. As stewards, we understand our responsibility to the environment but also to our City. Mitigation must remain on-site only and give back to the community what it is taking away. It will not benefit Corona to mitigate offsite in neighboring Elsinore or further out.

Wildfire danger
And whenever urban wildlands interface, it creates extremely dangerous and complex fire situations. The site is designated a State Responsibility Area VHFHSZ or “very high fire hazard severity zone”. There are no very high fire hazard severity zones currently in Corona and this would introduce that classification and danger.

Who recalls the outdoor barbecue that destroyed 1,020 acres in the Prado Basin last year? The homes themselves may be to code but the development would locate a potential 1,028 residents within the wildland/urban interface area, which could pose a safety threat to the public and firefighters. Is this the type of risk to property, life and wildlands that the City wants to undertake? Just because you can, does not mean you should.

Water
And meanwhile, Corona is in a Stage 3 Water Conservation Alert. In 2015, the City asked its citizens to conserve a staggering 2.3 billion gallons of water and incentivized residents who replaced lawns with droughttolerant vegetation. The City wants to create homes for 1,028 new residents while asking it's existing population to cutback it's water consumption by 28%? The city wants residents to install drought-tolerant vegetation while bulldozing 270 acres of native vegetation?

Land Use and Planning
3 Since the project proposes no new parkland or recreational facilities, the developer proposes to mitigate this by paying a park development impact fee. I am concerned any fees paid will not be earmarked or directly benefit access, maintenance or parking for the Skyline hiking trails.

Corona’s General Plan
I would like to remind you of Corona's General Plan goals and policies:
-to support the diverse needs of Corona's residents including opportunities for recreation and social and spiritual activity in balance with natural and open spaces; -to preserve and conserve open spaces for recreation and aesthetic relief;
-to sustain natural open spaces, hillsides and canyons; -to promote public places that are distinguished by their physical design, image, and effectiveness in nurturing community socialization, and perception as valued places; and, -to provide open spaces for residents with opportunities to enjoy the natural environment, and provide visual 'relief' from urban development.

I do not believe Skyline Heights is consistent with the General Plan with respect to these goals and policies.

We have something so unique here in Corona that many neighboring cities do not have. We have trails and quasi-public areas that provide easy access to our Cleveland National Forest. We have vistas from these trails where we can see Mount Baldy and Mount San Jacinto. We need to protect Skyline so that we’re not staring down into backyards of million dollar homes and losing a vital resource for a healthy community.

Planning Commissioners: you have an obligation to protect the natural beauty of our Corona foothills and our residents access to trails that lead into our national forests and the scenic views that are so unique and part of our City image and identity. Your decisions will impact not just the thousands of hikers, mountain bikers, runners, students and families who currently enjoy the beauty found throughout the Skyline trails, but also for many generations ahead. All of you, all of us, we are all stewards of these foothills.

I hope you will give careful consideration for a joint long-term solution between the residents, the developer, city leaders, county agencies and federal agencies that addresses the issues above, while promoting quality of life for Corona residents.

It's bad enough that we have the country's worst traffic. Let's not squander the opportunity to protect the very best thing about Corona.
4 Sincerely,

Patricia Anderson
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 45
Patricia (Realo) Anderson
[email protected]
Response to Letter 45
Response to Comment 45-1. This comment provides a general introduction regarding the comments raised in this letter. Responses to the comments contained in this letter are provided below in Responses to Comments 45-2 through 45-9 below.

Response to Comment 45-2. The comment requesting an extension of time for public comment on the Draft EIR is noted and will be provided to the decision makers for their consideration. Please see Response to Comment 15-7 (Letter 15, David Wright).

Response to Comment 45-3. With regard to project impacts to Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

With regard to project aesthetic impacts, please see Response to Comment 1-4 under “Scenic Integrity” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

Response to Comment 45-4. The location of mitigation is negotiated with the lead and regulatory agencies and may or may not include onsite mitigation. The mitigation rule for jurisdictional impacts is based primarily on potential for long term sustainability of the wildlife and botanical species. A functions and values assessment balances the proposed project impacts with the required mitigation and an appropriate mitigation ratio is applied, which accounts for temporal losses and compensates for the impacted functions and resources. So, while the standard regulatory policy is no net loss requiring a mitigation ratio of 1:1 of habitat creation for each acre of jurisdictional impact, the negotiated ratios with the regulatory agencies consider several factors.

The premise of the MSHCP is consistent with this rule in that areas of potential development have been identified and areas of valuable habitat with long term conservation value have been targeted for acquisition and conservation. The analysis of functions and values includes beneficial human uses for recreational purposes, education, scientific study / contribution, as well as aesthetic value; however, these human uses are not valued above wildlife and botanical species needs when offsetting impacts to jurisdictional areas and impacted species. Wildlife agencies generally do not consider long term conservation where human interaction is occurring or potentially increasing. In addition, mitigation areas that are created, either on or offsite, must have specific characteristics that will support sensitive species on a long-term basis without assistance.

Based on the 2013 focused surveys and 2016 general surveys, the project site does not currently support burrowing owl. Since the project site supports suitable habitat, a preconstruction survey will be conducted 30 days prior to ground disturbance in accordance with the MSHCP to ensure burrowing owls are not occupying the site at the time of construction (see Mitigation Measure BIO-MM12 in the Updated Biological City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-223

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Assessment and the RDEIR).Response to Comment 45-5. Please see Response to Comment 6-11 under “Wildland Fire Hazard (Letter 6, California Native Plant Society). Furthermore, approval of the project would not introduce increased fire danger to any other properties in the City.

Response to Comment 45-6. Please see Responses to Comments 9-8 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Sangita Patel) and 18-2 (Letter 18, Kyle Ericson).

Response to Comment 45-7. With regard to project parks and recreation impacts, please see Response to Comment 1-9 under “Proposed On-Site Park and Recreation Facilities” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

With regard to the mitigation of project parks and recreation impacts: (1) as indicated in Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District), the project would not impact Skyline Trail or any other dedicated public access trail; (2) as indicated in Response to Comment 1-9, the project’s park and recreation impacts relate to the amount of parkland required to serve the project residents and meet City park requirements, not impacts to dedicated public access trails (of which there will be none); (3) the payment of the City’s park development impact fees, as required by Mitigation Measure PS5, is intended to mitigate project impacts associated with the provision (or lack thereof) of on-site parkland required to serve project residents; and (4) per City of Corona Municipal Code Chapter 16.35, Park Dedication and In Lieu Fees, park development impact fees collected under Chapter 16.35 are intended to provide project residents with adequate parkland, and thus not create undue pressure on existing City park facilities. For all these reasons, the park development impact fees to be paid by the project would be appropriately earmarked to provide parkland elsewhere in the City to serve project residents, not for access, maintenance or parking for the Skyline hiking trails.

Response to Comment 45-8. With regard to project impacts to open space, please see Response to Comment 1-4 (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

With regard to project consistency with applicable City of Corona General Plan open space goals and policies, this was evaluated in Section 4.I, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR. As indicated on pages 4.I-19, the project would be consistent with all applicable City General Plan open space goals and policies. Support for this conclusion is provided in Table 4.I-2, General Plan Consistency Analysis, which provides a consistency analysis for each applicable City General Plan land use and open space goal and policy, including those identified in the comment (in order of listing in the comment, Policy 1.1.1 addressed on page 4.I-20, Goal 1.2 addressed on page 4.I-21, Policy 1.5.1 addressed on page 4.I-22, and Goal 1.16 addressed on page 4.I-24). It is noted that several of the goals/policies identified in the comment actually represent only a portion of the goals/policies referenced and/or combine sentences or portions of sentences to emphasize open space, when in fact some of the referenced goals call for balanced growth and a range of uses, only one of which is open space; please see Table 4.J-2 for the full text of each goal/policy. Furthermore, as indicated in Response to Comment 1-4: (1) both the County and the City designate the project site for urban development; (2) approximately 36 percent of the greater annexation area would be zoned agriculture and permanent open space land; (3) the project would largely preserve Mabey Canon and other surrounding open space features; (4) the project would not impact the designated trail head to Skyline Trail in the annexation area; and (5) the project would preserve vehicular and trail access to the CNF. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan land use open space goals and policies.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-224
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Response to Comment 45-9. This comment provides a general conclusion regarding the comments raised in this letter. Responses to the comments contained in this letter are provided above in Responses to Comments 45-1 through 45-8.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-225
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 4:40 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Protect Skyline Trails (April 11, 2016 Planning Commission) FYI
From: David James [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 4:32 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; [email protected]; Aaron Hake; Nelson Nelson Subject: Protect Skyline Trails (April 11, 2016 Planning Commission) Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is David Armenta and I am a resident of Corona, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands of hikers and cyclists like myself each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities.
2 I personally have hiked Skyline, Tin Mine Canyon, and Hagador Canyon on several occasions. I have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction). We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will be affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
David Armenta
Corona, Ca

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 46
David (James) Armenta
[email protected]
Response to Letter 46
Response to Comments 46-1 through 46-3. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6(Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnne Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-228
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 3:26 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Protect Skyline Hiking Trail
FYI
From: Brendan M [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 3:03 PM
To: Jason Scott; Terri Manuel
Subject: Protect Skyline Hiking Trail
To whom it may concern,
As a resident of Corona for all 21 years of my life, I have seen the city of Corona grow. Seemingly, it has grown every year. New homes, new streets, more lanes on the freeway, once vacant lots used for recreation activity growing up turned into a concrete jungle, our impacted freeways acquiring bridges hundreds of feet high which block views of the majestic mountains. While some may argue that these have been helpful additions to the city, I argue that all I have seen is an increase in traffic. It not takes me roughly an hour to make a trip just to starbucks on most occasions. In the mornings, I have to wake up at 5am to get to my first class at CSUF at 8:30.

The reason for this is traffic. The addition of even more houses would make this even worse. On most days the traffic on Green River is even worse than the traffic on the 91 freeway, and I am only driving a mile and a half to the on ramp. Living on Green River, this is how I must access the freeway to go west. And while you say the new renovations to Green River, adding two new lanes and traffic signals, I can say from first hand experience that this is not helped as of yet and on some days has made it worse.

Currently, the state of California is in a drought. The rain we have been seeing this El Nino year have been helping. But, In order for this water to have any affect on out state of the drought, the water must be absorbed back into the ground, into the natural reservoirs. By building new homes, the water that once would be able to be absorbed back into the ground would become run-off water that would go to waste. The residents of Corona have already been asked to cut back on water usage by 28%. What would be the effect of 1,000+ new residents? It wouldn't be good, I'll tell you that.

Skyline hiking trail has been used by many residents of the area for recreational activity, hiking, mountain biking, absorbing the views, taking in and learning wildlife. This historical trail needs to be protected to allow future use of this trail. Some use this as a getaway from civilization. We do not want to see housing developments on our nature hike.

I really hope these concerns are taken into consideration on the issue. -Brendan McGeown
Corona Resident

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 47
Brendan McGeown
[email protected]
Response to Letter 47
Response to Comment 47-1. The comments regarding how the commenter has seen the City growth over time, with associated increases in traffic, loss of open space used for recreation activity, and blockage of views, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as these comments do not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted With regard to the traffic impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, PetitionMoratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).With regard specifically to project traffic impacts along Green River Road, as indicated in Table 4.M-2, two study intersections and one roadway segment along Green River Road were evaluated in the analysis, including Intersection 1 (Serfas Club Dr./Green River Rd.), Intersection 2 (Paseo Grande/Green River Rd.), and Roadway Segment 1 (Green River Rd. between Serfas Club Dr. and Paseo Grande). As indicated in Tables 4.M-7, 4.M-8. And 4.M-9 of the Draft EIR, the project would result in less than significant traffic congestion at these intersections under Existing With Project, 2020 With Project, and 2035 With Project conditions, respectively. As indicated in Tables 7-2, 8-2 and 9-2 of the TIA, the project would result in less than significant traffic congestion at this roadway segment during these same three conditions.

Response to Comment 47-2. With regard to project impacts on the infiltration of rainwater to the local groundwater table, this is evaluated in Section 4.H-1, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, with supporting data provided in Appendix H, Preliminary Drainage Report and Water Quality Management Plan.

As indicated on page 4.H-5, the Temescal sub-basin, which covers a 26 square mile area of the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin, underlies a portion of the project site. As indicated on pages 4.H-26 and 4.H27, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table, and as such, the impact would be less than significant. Storm runoff within the development would still be directed to the same streams and channels, and would be absorbed into the ground as it has naturally in the pre-project condition. Although the conveyance systems for storm water runoff would be slightly different than the pre-project condition, the location of the discharge points would be the same. Please refer to Sections 2 and 3 of Appendix H for the pre- and post-project drainage shed and detention requirements.

With regard to project impacts on water supply, please see Response to Comment 9-8 (Letter 9, PetitionMoratorium, iPetitions.com, Sangita Patel).

Response to Comment 47-3. With regard to project impacts to hiking trails, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

With regard to the aesthetics impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 1-4 (Letter 1, United City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-230
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
States Forest Service).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-231
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 3:25 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Foothill Extension
FYI
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 3:10 PM
To: Jason Scott
Subject: Re: Foothill Extension
Hello Jason,
Thank you for your timely response regarding this matter, but I fell this response was a cut and paste type of response, not a sincere, and heartfelt response. I am a concerned and law abiding Corona citizen, who by the way has lived here since 1970, and I too have seen a lot of growth in our town, and by no means do I want to stifle our cities growth, but there has to be a limit. I wish there were a little more compassion coming from our City Council members towards the people that live here and have no choice but to work out of town.

Your response has already made me feel that no matter what we as concerned Corona citizen's have to say, that this cities plight regarding traffic, and overcrowding has already been sealed by those of you who will be making a profit.

Thank you for your "response",
Laura
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Scott <[email protected]>
To: luvndirish <[email protected]>
Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 10:10 am
Subject: Re: Foothill Extension
Hello Laura,
I thank you for your email. I am aware of the delays the $1.3 billion project is causing all of us and especially those headed west in the morning. I also know about getting to a Disney position as my son-in-law is in management and needs to also get to his Disney job.

The freeway expansion is critical as more and more people are buying new homes east (Riverside and beyond) and south (county area, Lake Elsinore, and Temecula area) yet work in Orange County. Just recently, a development of over 1,000 home units was approved south of Corona.

The Foothill Parkway was planned long ago and its not being built long ago placed a tremendous hardship on the residents of Ontario Avenue between Paseo Grande and Border. Foothill is also necessary to connect all parts of Corona.

The Corona Council is aware it is understood that development is sometimes difficult while at other times sought. The expansion of our City by private land owners is their legal right so long as they adhere to all legal requirements. The City staff, Planning Commission, nor City Council can legally deny a private property owner's desire to build and develop their land. The
I have seen the City grown since I came in 1968. I’m sure you’ve heard this story before, but there was no South Corona, Sierra Del Oro, Eagle Glen, or Dos Lagos. The hills around McKinley were hills with one having the old Corona Race 2 Track – not to be confused with the Corona Road Races around Grand Blvd in 1913, 1914 and 1916. Times have changed as things do change. Some have been difficult and some have been sought.

Thank you,
Jason Scott
Corona City Council
On Apr 11, 2016, at 8:50 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Corona Elected officials,
Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the council meeting in person, as I wished to address each of you personally. As a long time resident of Corona, and one of your constituents, I urge you to consider the impacts of additional housing developments in Corona especially along the Foothill Extension. If any of you have experience living in Corona, while working outside of Corona, you should understand the impact of additional vehicle traffic on our already congested streets, and the wasted days of your life you spend in traffic. I myself work for the Walt Disney Company, and will be forced to leave this dream job due to it is already taking me 2-3 hours to get to work in the morning. With this proposed addition to our town, there will be NO WAY I will be able to make my dream job a reality.

I know my job security is of no concern to you, but for me this is my life line, and means of making a living.

If memory serves, the foothill project was dreamed up in the late 80's early 90's as a way to alleviate the traffic through the residential areas of Corona. It is just now being built and will prove to be "too little, too late" to serve the needs of CURRENT traffic conditions. Adding approximately 300 new dwelling units with an estimate of 2-3 vehicles per household making several trips a day each will significantly affect the quality of life and worsen the commute for your constituents.

I do understand how lucrative development can be, with the associated taxes and fees that will indeed help the City's financial situation. Please weight the cons of this development including additional gridlock, emissions, removal of forestry, and quality of life impacts of your constituents against the cash flows that will come from this development.

I look forward to hearing from each of you on this matter.

Sincerely,
Laura Brennan-Mayhugh

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 48
Laura Brennan-Mayhugh
[email protected]
Response to Letter 48
Response to Comment 48-1. The comment that the commenter wishes there were a little more compassion coming from the City Council towards the people that live and work in the City is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. Please see Responses to Comments 48-2 through 48-6 below.

Response to Comment 48-2. Please see Responses to Comments 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin) and 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin).

Response to Comment 48-3. This comment is a response from the City of Corona to Comments 48-4 through 48-6 from Laura Brennan-Mayhugh. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 48-4. The comment urging the City Council to consider the impacts of additional housing developments in Corona, especially along the Foothill Extension, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. Please see Responses to Comments 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin) and 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin).

Response to Comment 48-5: Please see Responses to Comments 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin) and 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin).

Response to Comment 48-6. The request that the City weigh the pros (e.g., cash flows) and cons (e.g., gridlock, emissions, removal of forestry, impacts to quality of life) of the project is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. The Draft EIR addressed: the traffic impacts of the project in Section 4.M, Transportation, with supporting data provided in Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis; the air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the project in Sections 4.B, Air Quality, and 4.F, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, with supporting data provided in Appendix C, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report; and the impacts of the project on forestry resources in Section 4.O, Agriculture and Forestry Resources. As indicated therein, the project would result in: less than significant traffic impacts with implementation of the stipulated mitigation measures (page 4.M-44); less than significant air quality and GHG impacts with implementation of the proposed project design features (pages 4.B-37 and 4.F-21); and less than significant impacts on forestry resources (page 4.O-8). With respect to quality of life impacts, CEQA does not require the evaluation of such impacts.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-234
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 3:15 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Opposition to Large (~300DU) Development on Foothill Extension FYI
From: Aaron Cox [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 2:56 PM
To: Jason Scott
Subject: Re: Opposition to Large (~300DU) Development on Foothill Extension Jason,
Thanks for writing me back. You do make some valid counter points regarding right to develop the land they rightfully own. I hope the development comes with transportation improvement conditions so that improvements can happen when needed, and not 15 years too late.

Regards,
-Aaron
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Jason Scott <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Aaron,
I thank you for your email. I am aware of the delays the $1.3 billion project is causing all of us and especially those headed west in the morning. The freeway expansion is critical as more and more people are buying new homes east (Riverside and beyond) and south (county area, Lake Elsinore, and Temecula area) yet work in Orange County. Just recently, a development of over 1,000 home units was approved south of Corona.

The Corona Council is aware that development is sometimes difficult while at other times sought. The expansion of our City by private land owners is their legal right so long as they adhere to all legal requirements. The City staff, Planning Commission, nor City Council can legally deny a private property owner's desire to build and develop their land. The
I have seen the City grown since I came in 1968. I’m sure you’ve heard this story before, but there was no South Corona, Sierra Del Oro, Eagle Glen, or Dos Lagos. The hills around McKinley were hills with one having the old Corona Race Track – not to be confused with the Corona Road Races around Grand Blvd in 1913, 1914 and 1916. Times have changed as things do change. Some have been difficult and some have been sought.

Thank you again,
Jason Scott
Corona City Council
2 On Apr 11, 2016, at 8:28 AM, Aaron Cox <[email protected]> wrote:

I look forward to hearing from each of you on this matter.

Sincerely
-Aaron M. Cox
--
-Aaron M. Cox
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 49
Aaron Cox
[email protected]
Response to Letter 49
Response to Comment 49-1: With regard to the comment concerning the right to develop private property, please see Response to Comment 1-3 (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

With regard to the traffic impacts of the project, and the timing of required traffic mitigation: (1) please see Responses to Comments 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin) and 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin); (2) as indicated on pages 4.M-43 and 4.M-44 of the Draft EIR, mitigation measures required to reduce the significant traffic impacts of the project to less than significant levels shall be implemented prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project; and (3) as indicated on page 4.M34 of the Draft EIR, it is anticipated that construction of the project would only occur if the Foothill Parkway Extension Project were completed. However, as of late 2016, the Foothill Parkway Extension has been completed and is currently operational.

Response to Comments 49-2. This comment is a response from the City of Corona to Comments 49-5 through 49-7 from Aaron Cox. Please see Responses to Comments 9-11 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Brad Roekle) and 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin).

Responses to Comments 49-3 and 49-4. This comment is a response from the City of Corona to Comments 49-5 through 49-7 from Aaron Cox. Please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Development at the UrbanRural Interface” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

Response to Comment 49-5. Please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).

Response to Comment 49-6: With regard to project traffic impacts, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin) and 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin).

With regard to the comment that project traffic would significantly affect the quality of life, this comment is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, quality of life is not an issue requiring analysis under CEQA.

Response to Comment 49-7. Please see Response to Comment 48-6 (Letter 48, Laura Brennan-Mayhugh).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-237
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 2:32 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW:

Message sent to the full City Council.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Wendie Stevens‐Rodriguez [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 1:57 PM
To: Dick Haley; Jason Scott; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel Subject:

Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members
My name is Wendie Stevens‐Rodriguez and I am a resident of Norco, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the General Plan Amendment to change 357.14 acres from Rural Residential I to Low Density Residential and

37.61 acres to Open Space located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands of hikers and cyclists each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy
I understand the trail head has already been moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. I believe in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.
2 Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Wendie Stevens‐Rodriguez
Sent from my iPad
Sent from my iPad

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 50
Wendie Stevens-Rodriguez
[email protected]
Response to Letter 50
Response to Comments 50-1 through 50-3. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6(Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnne Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-240
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 12:00 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Skyline Heights Proposed Development
FYI
From: Nicole Krenzin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 11:45 AM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; Jason Moquin Subject: Skyline Heights Proposed Development
Hello Corona Elected officials,
I will be attending the planning meeting this evening. But also wanted to put something in writing. As a resident of the foothills of Corona, and one of your constituents, I urge you to consider the impacts of additional housing developments in Corona especially along the Foothill Extension. If any of you have experience living in Corona, while working outside of Corona, you should understand the impact of additional vehicle traffic on our already congested streets, and the wasted days of your life you spend in traffic. On days like today, my husband spent over 2 hours trying to get to work, half of that was just trying to get ON the freeway. On a "normal" day, it takes him over an hour to go 30 miles. He'll do the same coming home, and on some nights will not even be able to see our children before they go to sleep.

The foothill project is intended to alleviate the traffic through the residential areas of Corona. Adding approximately 300 new houses with an estimate of 2-3 vehicles per household making several trips a day each will significantly affect the quality of life and worsen the commute for your constituents. The new homes that are being built (including all of the other current and proposed residential developments in Corona) will, in effect, negate any potential traffic improvement hoped to gain from the Foothill extension and the 91 project.

In addition, in Corona's General Plan states that, "Corona will respect and enhance it's environmental resources." and "accommodate land use development in balance with the preservation and conservation of open spaces for recreation, aesthetic relief, natural resource value, and public safety." Thus far, I see no attempt to enhance it's environmental resources. I see the views of our beautiful hills and open spaces being bulldozed, and homes being built directly adjacent to, and visible from our one and only hiking trail. Most other thriving cities offer their residents ecological preserves and walking trails such as the Santa Rosa Plataeu, and innovative open-space parks for children such as Adventure Park in Irvine. Besides Skyline, which continues to be choked by development, Corona offers none of these. Every open space is re-zoned for housing development. Corona is not Orange County's bedroom, and we should stop treating it as such.

I do understand how lucrative development can be, with the associated taxes and fees that will indeed help the City's financial situation. Please weight the cons of this development including additional gridlock, emissions, school over-crowding, removal of forestry, and quality of life impacts of your constituents against the cash flows that will come from this development.

I love Corona, and want to see it thrive. We need to focus our energy on the redevelopment of our downtown area. I believe with that, and supply and demand, we could see an amazing re-birth of the homes in our historical districts, such as in Redlands, Orange, Fullerton, etc. If we keep building new homes, there is no incentive to "fix up" the older homes. And people will continue to dine, shop, and play in other communities. 2 I look forward to hearing from each of you on this matter.

Sincerely,
Nicole Krenzin
2627 Falcon Circle
Corona, CA 92882
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 51
Nicole Krenzin
2627 Falcon Circule
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
Response to Letter 51
Response to Comment 51-1 and 51-2. With regard to project traffic impacts, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).

With regard to the incorporation of cumulative development into the traffic analysis, please see Response to Comment 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin).

Response to Comment 51-3. With regard to project consistency with City of Corona General Plan’s open space goals and policies, please see Response to Comment 45-8 (Letter 45, Patricia (Realo) Anderson.

With regard to project aesthetics impacts, please see Response to Comment 1-4 under “Scenic Integrity” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

Response to Comment 51-4. The request that the City weigh the pros (e.g., cash flows) and cons (e.g., gridlock, emissions, removal of forestry, impacts to quality of life) of the project is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. Please see Response to Comments 48-6 (Letter 48, Laura Brennan-Mayhugh).

With regard to impacts to schools, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).

With regard to the comment that the City should focus its energy on the redevelopment of the downtown, this comment is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-243
1 David Crook
From: Terri Manuel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 12:01 PM
To: Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Proposed Skyline Heights Development
From: Nicole Krenzin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 11:48 AM
To: Terri Manuel
Subject: Proposed Skyline Heights Development
Hello,
I will be attending the planning meeting this evening. But also wanted to put something in writing. As a resident of the foothills of Corona, I urge you to consider the impacts of additional housing developments in Corona especially along the Foothill Extension. If any of you have experience living in Corona, while working outside of Corona, you should understand the impact of additional vehicle traffic on our already congested streets, and the wasted days of your life you spend in traffic. On days like today, my husband spent over 2 hours trying to get to work, half of that was just trying to get ON the freeway. On a "normal" day, it takes him over an hour to go 30 miles. He'll do the same coming home, and on some nights will not even be able to see our children before they go to sleep.

I do understand how lucrative development can be, with the associated taxes and fees that will indeed help the City's financial situation. Please weight the cons of this development including additional gridlock, emissions, school over-crowding, removal of forestry, and quality of life impacts of your constituents against the cash flows that will come from this development.

Sincerely,
Nicole Krenzin
2627 Falcon Circle
Corona, CA 92882

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 52
Nicole Krenzin
2627 Falcon Circule
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
Response to Letter 52
Response to Comments 52-1 through 52-4. Pease see Responses to Comments 51-1 through 51-4.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-246
1 David Crook
Subject: FW: Proposed Parking Lot on Mangular and Chase for the Skyline Hikers From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 10:27 AM
To: Terri Manuel
Subject: Proposed Parking Lot on Mangular and Chase for the Skyline Hikers April 11, 2016

To the City of Corona, Community Development Department Attn: Terri Manuel, Planning Manager

We have been advised that the city is about to propose a plan to build a public parking lot on the south side of the County Flood Control and Water Conservation Basin located on Chase Drive between Mangular and Skyline Drive. This parking lot will be for the hikers and bikers that visit the Skyline Trailhead one mile away.

My husband and I own 8 acres across the street from this proposed parking lot. Our 8 acres consists of 3 separate properties, our residence and two other homes, which are rental residences for two other families. Our property line runs up Skyline Drive from Chase to Foothill, which is where you want all the people to walk to the Trailhead.

We oppose this parking lot in the strongest possible terms and we are very concerned that you are thinking about putting a public parking lot in a quiet residential neighborhood.

We have had negative experiences for the past 12 years with the Skyline hikers and bikers. Some of these people would park on Skyline or Chase to walk up to the Trailhead. Some would urinate on our fences and bushes (because there is no public restrooms and they have been out on the trail all day), they would throw their trash all over the street, they would not pick up after their dogs, they would return to their cars at all hours of the evening and hangout and party at their cars before going home, they would block our driveways, go onto our private property and steal our avocados, they would drive their dirt bikes fast down the middle of Skyline Drive Street, being a nuisance and causing a disturbance. At night the wash and area because of its privacy would become a popular gathering and hang out spot for youths to hang out and party. We are afraid if this parking lot is built all these issues will become a problem on a much bigger scale.

In your Corona Municipal Code book, under Off-Street Parking you have listed that parking facilities shall be located not more than 300 feet from the building or use it is required to serve. When I brought this up to some of the City employees they advised me the Skyline Trail begins at the corner of Skyline Drive and Chase. We and our Attorney have looked through several city and county documents and nowhere does it state this portion of Skyline Drive is a legal trail. In fact it’s listed as a public street. You cannot just say this is a trail because you want to put in a public parking lot close by.

It is true that the Skyline Trail Hikers and Bikers need a parking lot after Foothill is completed. But putting their parking lot in our residential area is not a good solution. This will cause an enormous traffic problem, safety issue, a noise issue, public nuisance, a huge spillover parking onto our residential neighborhoods, and a decrease in property value in the neighborhood.

We ask you to please consider the effects this will have on our neighborhood and to come up with another area closer to the Trailhead or off of Foothill before all these new homes are built in the Skyline Heights. 2 Thank you,

Ann Long
Donald Long
1460 W Chase Drive,
Corona, CA 92882

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 53
Ann and Donald Long
1460 W. Chase Drive
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
Response to Letter 53
Responses to Comments 53-1 through 53-3 Please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-249
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 11:20 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: I oppose encroachment at skyline trails
Message sent to the full City Council.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 10:29 AM
To: Karen Spiegel
Subject: I oppose encroachment at skyline trails
Mrs. Spiegel,
I am a homeowner near skyline trail. I highly oppose the proposition to build more houses near skyline. With the Foothill Parkway extension, there will be enough traffic as it is. Adding additional homes out here will only make things worse.

My family and I have resided in corona for many years and our backyard backs right up to foothill/skyline. Please do not build more homes.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Rachel DosSantos
Sent from my iPhone
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 54
Rachel DosSantos
[email protected]
Response to Letter 54
Response to Comment 54-1. The comment expressing opposition to building more homes in the Skyline area is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to the traffic impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, PetitionMoratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-251
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 10:50 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: 300 home development proposal
FYI
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 10:36 AM
To: Jason Scott
Cc: Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake Subject: 300 home development proposal
I oppose the new 300 home development that is proposed once the foothill extension is complete. This project will add almost 3,000 daily car trips to our gridlocked city.

Respectfully,
Jennifer K. Daughaday
(951) 358‐9669
Sent from my iPhone stopped in traffic
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 55
Jennifer Daughaday
[email protected]
Response to Letter 55
Response to Comment 55-1. The comment expressing opposition to project is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to the traffic impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, PetitionMoratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-253
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:34 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Foothill Expansion
Message sent to the full City Council.

From: Sean Soto [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:14 AM
To: Dick Haley; Jason Scott; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake Subject: Foothill Expansion
To Whom it May Concern,
I am wholeheartedly opposed to the 300 new home development proposal at the Foothill Expansion.

Traffic is already a nightmare in our city, until that is handled first (and public transportation closely following that), we don’t need to spend resources on adding more homes only to create more traffic.

Why not focus on bringing more business/jobs to Corona? Corona is a wonderful city for new families, spending less time in traffic and more time at home seems like something we would all vote for.

Thank you,
-SRS
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 56
Sean Soto
[email protected]
Response to Letter 56
Response to Comment 56-1. The comments expressing opposition to project, and requesting that the City focus on bringing more business/jobs to the Corona, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers.

However, as these comments do not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to the traffic impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, PetitionMoratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-255
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:28 AM
To: Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
JC – FYI Supervisor Tavaglione has been cc’d on these.

From: Tavaglione, John [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:13 AM
To: Field, John; Eugene Montanez
Subject: Fwd: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
John Tavaglione
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Eugene Montanez <[email protected]> Date: April 11, 2016 at 8:07:39 AM PDT
To: Elsa Yoshida <[email protected]>
Cc: Darrell Talbert <[email protected]>, "Tavaglione, John" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Thank you for the email, but the project you mentioned will not affect the
Skyline trail in any manner.

All access will remain.

There are many rumors out there. I would encourage you to actually investigate the truth. I have lived in Corona since 1964 and have used the
trail as a Boy Scout and as an adult, and feel as strongly about access to
the Forest as anyone.

The property in question has never been a part of the Forest, and has been
in plans of development for well over 20 years.

Please give me a call if you would like to discuss further. 2 Eugene Montanez
Council Member
City of Corona
951‐734‐8181 (personal office)
From: Elsa Yoshida <[email protected]>
Reply‐To: Elsa Yoshida <[email protected]>
Date: Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 6:36 PM
To: Jason Scott <[email protected]>, Dick Haley <[email protected]>, Randy Fox <[email protected]>, Eugene Montanez <[email protected]>, Karen Spiegel <[email protected]>, Aaron Hake <[email protected]>, Nelson Nelson <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing ‐ REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Elsa Yoshida and I am a resident of Murrieta, California. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I personally have enjoyed, and benefited and have hiked Skyline numerous times since 2014 as part of a weekly group that meets twice a week to hike 2.5 miles up the fire road and back, and on several occasions have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction), or simply into Tin Mine Canyon for a nature walk with many of the younger and older generations in my family. We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Elsa Yoshida

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 57
Elsa Yoshida
[email protected]
Response to Letter 57
Response to Comment 57-1. This comment is a response from the City of Corona to Comments 57-2 through 57-4 from Elsa Yoshida. With regard to the portion of the City’s response stating that the project site has never been part of the Cleveland National Forest (CNF), the project site is private property that is located wholly within the CNF. Please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Consistency with CNF LMP” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) for further discussion. With regard to portion of the City’s response regarding impacts on Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District) for further discussion.

Response to Comments 57-2 through 57-4. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6(Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnne Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-259
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:25 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Skyline trail
Message sent to Mayor.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Malinda [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:13 AM
To: Jason Scott
Subject: Skyline trail
Hi
I am writing to oppose the 300 homes being built near skyline drive. We already have way too much traffic in this city and making the expansion will just increase that. The area is expanding the road on foothill and with 300 more homes it's likely not worth expanding as it will not make much difference with more cars using it. The trails are already surrounded by homes built a few years ago and it's not the same scenic outdoor feel you got when the homes were not there. I am sure there are plenty more open land areas somewhere else that these investors could build homes on.

Please save our trails and build somewhere else. Thanks Sent from my iPhone
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 58
Malinda Vance
[email protected]
Response to Letter 58
Response to Comment 58-1. The comment expressing opposition to project is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to the traffic impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, PetitionMoratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).

With regard to the open space impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 1-4 (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

With regard to the impacts of the project on hiking trails, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-261
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:06 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Stop the madness!
Message sent to Mayor.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Sylvia Sparks [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 8:51 AM
To: Jason Scott
Subject: Stop the madness!
Since I am stuck, not moving in car this morning, took me to get to work in 2 hours, please i oppose the new 300 home development that is proposed once the foothill extension is complete. This project will add almost 3,000 daily car trips to our gridlocked city.

Sent from my iPhone
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 59
Sylvia Sparks
[email protected]
Response to Letter 59
Response to Comment 59-1. The comment expressing opposition to project is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to the traffic impacts of the project, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, PetitionMoratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-263
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 8:52 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: [BULK] April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Importance: Low
FYI
From: Brittney Pecore [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 10:14 AM
Subject: [BULK] April 11, 2016 Planning Commission Public Hearing - REJECT Applications and PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail
Importance: Low
Mayor Jason Scott
Vice Mayor Dick Haley
City Council Member Randy Fox
City Council Member Eugene Montanez
City Council Member Karen Spiegel
City Treasurer Aaron Hake
Public Works Director Nelson Nelson
Re: April 11, 2016 Planning Commission - Applications
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

My name is Brittney Pecore and I am a resident of Corona, California, in the Mountain Gate Area. I am writing as a concerned community member to ask that you PROTECT Skyline Hiking Trail and REJECT the applications on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, as follows:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I have lived in Corona for 26 years, since I was 6 years old, and I remember when Skyline started at Chase. It has changed so much since the homes on Foothill went in and to images part of our forest and natural hiking trail disappearing to more homes breaks my heart. I personally have hiked with my parents, children and friends, taken mountain bikes up, and enjoyed the view from the top. Please don't take this away from us. There are NO other hiking trails in corona and manufactured green belts do not substitute for nature.

In addition to the quality of life the skyline hiking trail provides, the negative impacts of more homes in corona vastly outweigh whatever economic positives you see. Traffic, congestion, speeding and overcrowding are diminishing our quality of life as small families and communities. I've lived in corona since 1989 and have watched it expand to the concrete jungle of tract homes upon more tract homes. I've watched orange groves burned (Main & Foothill, while I was in high school), cut down (Cajalco & 15 fwy) and abandoned (Lincoln & Highgrove). I've seen open fields leveled and developed (El Cerrito & 15 fwy - which is causing AWFUL traffic and issues). The LAST thing we need is another tract.

We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
Brittney Pecore

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 60
Brittney Pecore
[email protected]
Response to Letter 60
Response to Comments 60-1 through 60-4. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6(Letter 15, David Wright).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-266
1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 11:54 AM
To: David Crook; Mike Byer ([email protected]) Subject: FW: Skyline Dr. Meeting on April 11th
From: Terri Manuel
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 7:54 AM
To: Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Skyline Dr. Meeting on April 11th
This one came after the meeting started.

From: lolly janoski [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 6:16 PM
To: Terri Manuel
Subject: Skyline Dr. Meeting on April 11th
Hello Terri,
I am writing my response to the EIR that is being discussed at the meeting tonight. I want these comments to be part of the public record as I am unable to attend. I have lived in Corona since 1977. I taught at Corona High School and my kids went all through Corona schools and now have successful careers and families and live here, also. My husband currently works in Corona.

Here are some concerns:

1. Residents of Corona are required to reduce their water usage by 50%. I have reduced mine by 70%. It is irresponsible to destroy native chaparral that requires no city water, to build homes that will use water. It doesn't matter whether they have recycled water, they are still using more water than that land is currently using.

2. Regardless of building codes for fire safe homes, there will be a fire there one day, and firefighters lives will be in danger trying to protect homes that should not be so close to a National forest. Once again, it is irresponsible.

3. The City Council maintains that once the 91 FWY expansion is completed, there will be no local traffic problems. This might be the case for a few years, IF the city would stop residential construction. There is no point in "building out" Corona as the city manager suggests. That just increases water usage and traffic.

4. Regarding the project planned at Skyline Drive, this area is a fabulous resource of beauty, a delicate ecosystem, and a wonderful recreation area. There should be a paradigm shift in the focus of the council regarding this natural treasure. We should all be doing everything we can to protect it for now and for generations to come.

If you go to see the waterfall in Monrovia, you wind through an old residential neighborhood to get to the parking at the trail head. If the lot is full, you are allowed to park on the residential streets. The neighbors are proud of their natural habitat and eager for people to enjoy it. 2 If you drive down the 133 to Laguna, there is parking at trail heads and port-a-potties and information about the trails.

The Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor board approved a $2.9 million contract to install wildlife fencing along the 241. What a commitment to nature and wildlife! This was done in conjunction with UC Davis, who has had previous projects that tagged and monitored the mountain lions of the Santa Ana Mountains.

Yet, in Corona, a neighborhood of a few houses was able to block the public from easy public access to the Cleveland National Forest because they did not like the traffic. It is as though hundreds of people who use this land for recreation on a weekly basis are less important than homeowners. This land has been used for decades by the public. Way before the tract of homes was built. Now, there is talk of moving the access even further from the Skyline Trail. Once again, the people who love and enjoy this area take second place to development of homes. It's not appropriate.

Our beautiful foothills contain mountain lions, deer, Bobcats, to name a few, plus many, many species of birds.

In fact, there are probably only about 20 mountain lions left in the Santa Ana Mountains. Their biggest threat is man. Building houses close to their territory is a recipe for disaster as many are shot who wander close to neighborhoods. The construction, the noise, the pollutants will wreak havoc on the delicate balance of this ecosystem. The mitigation is to try to avoid noise, construction, etc. during January to September for nesting birds, which is pretty funny, really. We all know that isn't going to happen. So, the EIR states they will basically do their best to not disrupt nature.

Please try to embrace this natural resource and enhance it for the enjoyment of the public. I think this area could be really friendly to hikers, bikers, and nature lovers, and a source of beauty and pride for all of Corona if we all pool our resources and make a commitment to preserving it, not using it for monetary gain. It is a unique spot in Corona. Let's keep it that way.

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 61
Lolly Janoski
[email protected]
Response to Letter 61
Response to Comment 61-1. The request that the comments in this letter be part of the public record is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. As this request does not raise a substantial issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is required.

With regard to the balance of the comment, it provides a general introduction regarding the comments raised in this letter. Responses to the comments contained in this letter are provided below in Responses to Comments 61-2 through 61-6.

Response to Comment 61-2. Please see Response to Comment 9-8 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Sangita Patel).

Response to Comment 61-3. Please see Response to Comment 6-11 under “Wildland Fire Hazard” (Letter 6, California Native Plant Society).

Response to Comment 61-4: The comments that that the 91 FWY expansion will only reduce traffic problems in the City for a while, and that there is no point in building out Corona because that would just increase traffic and water usage, these comments are noted and will be provided to the decision makers.

Please see Responses to Comments 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin) and 9-8 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Sangita Patel).

Response to Comment 61-5. With regard to the aesthetics, biological resources, and open space impacts of the project, please see Responses to Comments 1-4 (Letter 1, National Forest Service), 32-1 (Letter 32, K.

Zimmerman), and 1-4 (Letter 1, United States Forest Service), respectively.

With regard to the impacts of the project on hiking trails, and on trail access and access to the CNF, please see Response to Comment 5-1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District), and Response to Comment 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service), respectively.

With regard to existing public use of the project site, the project site represents private property.

Furthermore, no dedicated public access trails, other than Skyline Trail which will be preserved, bisect the project site. Please see Response to Comment 1-3 under “Development at the Urban-Rural Interface” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service) for further discussion.

Response to Comment 61-6. The proposed Project will not remove wildlife movement corridors but will have an impact on overall habitat and range for this species through loss of habitat. Mountain lions are “Covered Species Adequately Conserved” under the MSHCP. Therefore, impacts to mountain lion have been addressed in the MSHCP, in addition to the project EIR. Management of “edge effects” under Urban/Wildland City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-269

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Interface Section 9.5 of the Updated Biological Assessment (Appendix A of the RDEIR) will reduce indirect impacts to all wildlife species, including mountain lions. Please see Response to Comment 4-11 above. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-MM13 was added to the EIR to reduce human and mountain lion conflicts:

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM13. A mountain lion (Puma concolor) program shall be developed by the project Applicant for City review and approval in an effort to reduce likelihood of human-lion conflicts. The program shall include the following components:

1. A suitable homeowner education package for distribution to residents / new owners;

2. A suitable road sign program warning of the presence of mountain lions and the need for reduced speeds and increased caution;

3. A suitable CC&R provision limiting unsupervised outdoor pets and pet feeding practices that may encourage mountain lions to enter residential yards in search of food; and

4. A suitable mountain lion safety plan.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-270
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 4:20 PM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: Skyline
Message sent to the full City Council
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Elaine Harris [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 4:19 PM
To: Randy Fox
Subject: Skyline
Mr. Fox ‐ I would like to request that you vote to keep Skyline as is and not approve additional housing in that area. This has been a hidden treasure (along with Tin Mine Canyon) in Corona where people can get away and feel a part of nature which adding homes would destroy. There has been so many housing and apartment complexes approved that the subsequent cars and people are going to make all the Freeway improvements obsolete. Please say no to this one.

Thank you . . . Elaine Harris

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 62
Elaine Harris
[email protected]
Response to Letter 62
Response to Comment 62-1. The comment requesting that the City note approve the project is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

With regard to existing public use of the project site, the project site represents private property.

With regard to the impacts of the project on traffic, biological resources, and open space, please see Responses to Comments 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin), 32-1 (Letter 32, K. Zimmerman), and 1-4 (Letter 1, United States Forest Service), respectively.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-272
1 David Crook
From: Sylvia Viayra <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 8:19 AM
To: Darrell Talbert; Joanne Coletta
Subject: FW: housing development
Message sent to the full City Council
From: Linda Terry [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 10:40 PM
To: Jason Scott; [email protected]; Randy Fox; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: housing development
HELLO Elected officials.,,
UNFORTUNATELY, I will not be able to attend the council meeting in person, as I wished to address each of you personally. As a long time resident of Corona 41 years, and one of your constituents I urge you to consider the impacts of additional housing developments in corona especially along the Foothill Extension... If any of you have experience living in corona while working outside of corona, you should understand the impact of additional vehicle traffic on our already congested streets, and the wasted days of your life you spend in traffic, If memory serves, the foothill project was dreamed up in the late 80;s early 90's as a way to alleviate the traffic though the residential areas of corona.. It is just now being build and will prove to be "too little, too late" to serve the needs of current traffic conditions.. Adding approximately 300 new dwelling units with an estimate of 2-3 vehicles per household making several trips a day each will significantly affect the quality of life and worsen the commute for your constituents. In as much as I understand how lucrative development can be, with the associated taxes and fees that will indeed help the city's financial situation, please weigh in the cons of this including additional gridlock, emissions, removal of forestry and quality of life impacts of your constituents against the cash flow that will come from this development.. I personally would think that creating things to do for the already over crowded corona and jobs or welcoming businesses here in the city would be a much more lucrative and sensible solution. No more housing here in corona we are already over populated...

I look forward to hearing from each of you on this matter,,, Respectfully
Linda TerryCorona, Ca 92879
Rightclick
here to
downlo
ad
picture
s. To
help
protect
your
privacy,
Outlook
prevent
ed
automa
tic
downlo
ad of
this
picture
from
the
Interne
t.
;-)
Linda Terry
[email protected]

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 63
Linda Terry
Corona, CA 92879
[email protected]
Response to Letter 63
Responses to Comments 63-1 and 63-2. The comment requesting that the Corona City Council consider the impacts of the proposed project is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. The Draft EIR provides a complete and full analysis of the potential environmental effects associated with the project in accordance with CEQA requirements.

With regard to the traffic impacts of the project, including along the recently completed Foothill Parkway extension, please see Response to Comment 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin).

Response to Comment 63-2: With regard to the traffic impacts of the project, and the timing of required traffic mitigation: (1) please see Responses to Comments 9-3 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Nicole Krenzin) and 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin); (2) as indicated on pages 4.M-43 and 4.M-44 of the Draft EIR, mitigation measures required to reduce the significant traffic impacts of the project to less than significant levels shall be implemented prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project; and (3) as indicated on page 4.M-34 of the Draft EIR, it is anticipated that construction of the project would only occur if the Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project were completed. As noted previously, the construction of this project was completed in late 2016 and the roadway is currently operational.

Response to Comment 63-3. The request that the City weigh the pros (e.g., cash flows) and cons (e.g., gridlock, emissions, removal of forestry, impacts to quality of life) of the project is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. Please see Response to Comments 48-6 (Letter 48, Laura Brennan-Mayhugh).

The comments expressing opposition to more housing in the City of Corona, and requesting that the City focus on overcrowding and bringing more jobs and businesses to the City, is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, as these comments do not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-274
1 David Crook
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 10:40 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Planning and Zoning Meeting April 11, 2016 regarding the Parking for the Skyline Trailhead Hikers
April 11, 2016

To the City of Corona, Community Development Department Attn: Terri Manuel, Planning Manager

We oppose this parking lot in the strongest possible terms and we are very concerned that you are thinking about putting a public parking lot in a quiet residential neighborhood.

When we heard about this proposed parking lot, we decided to go up on Foothill and keep a log of how many cars would park there at different times of the day. What we found out is very disturbing. At times there would be over 150 cars parked there at one time. And each car does not have only one person in them, but 2, 3, 4, 6 even more people would pile out of the cars. That’s over 300 people on some days that would be walking up our property line. Skyline Drive from Chase Drive to Foothill is a public street. It is only a single lane and it serves as a street for us and our renters to go to and from our property. If you put in this parking lot and have all these people walk up this street, you would be denying our renters and us a safe access to our homes and property and denying us a safe surrounding. Our renters have told us that they foresee a safety issue if this parking lot is built and they fear for the safety of their children and family in an area that was once considered safe, and if you approve this parking lot, they will be moving from their houses. 2 In your Corona Municipal Code book, under Off-Street Parking you have listed that parking facilities shall be located not more than 300 feet from the building or use it is required to serve. When I brought this up to some of the City employees they advised me the Skyline Trail begins at the corner of Skyline Drive and Chase. We and our Attorney have looked through several city and county documents and nowhere does it state this portion of Skyline Drive is a legal trail. In fact it’s listed as a public street. You cannot just say this is a trail because you want to put in a public parking lot close by.

Thank you,

Ann Long
Donald Long
1460 W Chase Drive,
Corona, CA 92882
(951) 316-0952

January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 64
Ann and Donald Long
1460 W. Chase Drive
Corona, CA 92882
[email protected]
Response to Letter 64
Response to Comments 64-1 through 64-3. Please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnna Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-277

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 65
Dwight Woodward
2272 Adrienne Drive
Response to Letter 65
Response to Comment 65-1. Please see Response to Comment 11-2 (Letter 11, Dwight Woodward).

Response to Comment 65-2. With regard to the comment that all blue line streams should not be disturbed, please see Response to Comment 11-3 (Letter 11, Dwight Woodward).

With regard to the comment that any retention basins should be conditions to be planted and maintained with native plants, this comment expresses concern that the project design would cause significant visual and biological resources impacts, including impacts to project site drainages, and an alternative design should be proposed. The EIR acknowledges that the project will have a significant impact to visual and biological resources, for which mitigation is proposed to reduce these impacts. The recommended mitigation measures for biological resources would reduce project impacts to a less than significant level.

However, impacts to visual resources (aesthetics) are found to remain significant even after mitigation and a statement of overriding considerations is required.

Where water quality basins or riparian/riverine mitigation are proposed on-site, revegetation plans will incorporate native species. Non-native invasive species are expressly prohibited and all non-natives will be eradicated during the establishment period as part of the revegetation efforts. The project will be conditioned to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements for water quality. See Draft EIR discussion in Section 4.H Hydrology and Water Quality.

Response to Comment 65-3. With regard to the portion of the comment stating that there still seems to be an impact on Skyline Drive by having homes built too close to the road, please see Response to Comment 1-6 under “Access to the CNF” (Letter 1, United States Forest Service).

With regard to the comment that the development needs some type of document for the owners of the houses to sign to make them aware of the recreation use of Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 5- 1 (Letter 5, Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District).

With regard to the comment that the glare from the street lights will hinder the night time views, the Draft EIR evaluated the light and glare impacts of the project in Section 4.A, Aesthetics. As indicated on pages 4.A21 and 4.A-22, the project (including project street lighting) would not create substantial light or glare which would adversely affect views in the area, and thus the light and glare impact would be less than significant.

As indicated on page 4.A-21, this conclusion is based on the fact that project street lights would be required City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-282
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
to adhere to established City Municipal Code standards for the design, placement, and operation of street lights, including shielding and directing lights downward with minimum spillover onto adjacent residences, sensitive land uses, and open space.

Response to Comment 65-4. With regard to the comment that in-lieu fees for recreation should stay within a mile of the development, please see Response to Comment 45-7 (Letter 45, Patricia (Realo) Anderson).

With regard to the comment than an Outlook needs to be connected to a public path, please see Response to Comment 11-1 (Letter 11, Dwight Woodward).

Response to Comment 65-5: The comment that the traffic light proposed at the Border Avenue/Ontario Avenue intersection should not be installed because Foothill Parkway is intended to alleviate the pressure from Ontario is noted and will be provided to the decision makers. However, Mitigation Measure TR-2, requiring the installation of a traffic signal at Intersection 4 (Border Avenue/Ontario Avenue), is required to reduce the project’s significant traffic impact at this intersection under existing, 2020 and 2035 conditions as indicated in Tables 4.M-7 through 4.M-9 of the Draft EIR. Furthermore, as indicated on page 4.M-44 of the Draft EIR, this intersection is in the City’s Fee Program as a master-planned traffic signal to be installed by the City.

Response to Comment 65-6. Please see Responses to Comments 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin) and 11- 10 (Letter 11, Dwight Woodward). Please see Response to Comment. The traffic analysis is complete as written.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-283
1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 4:26 PM
To: David Crook
Subject: FW: Protect Skyline Trails
From: Sylvia Viayra
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 5:28 PM
To: Joanne Coletta; Darrell Talbert
Subject: FW: Protect Skyline Trails
FYI
From: David James [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 4:52 PM
To: Karen Spiegel
Subject: Protect Skyline Trails
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Treasurer, and Public Works Director:

REJECT the application for the annexation of 394.8 acres from Unincorporated Riverside County in the City of Corona’s southwest Sphere of Influence to the City of Corona.

REJECT the Application to pre-zone 37.61 acres to Open Space, 86.23 acres to Agriculture, and 270.9 acres to R-1-7.2 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) located generally south of the westerly extension of Foothill Parkway, east of Paseo Grande and west of Trudy Way.

I ask you to reject these applications in the interest of preserving access to the Skyline Hiking Trail and the encroachment of an additional 292 homes and subsequent traffic to 2 this area. The Skyline trail is accessed by thousands of hikers and cyclists like myself each month who wish to conserve the open space and access to natural areas afforded by the Cleveland National Forest. There are thousands of hikers, cyclists, walkers and other outdoor enthusiasts accessing the trails each month for exercise which builds healthy communities.

I personally have hiked Skyline, Tin Mine Canyon, and Hagador Canyon on several occasions. I have hiked 5.0+ miles up to the Doppler and back, or as far as Black Star Canyon (13+ miles in one direction). We have seen the trail head already moved 1/2 mile further away and now hear of a proposal to move parking an additional 1 mile away, greatly impeding our access to the Skyline trail. Our hiking group believes in healthy lifestyles and the conservation of our forests and trails. Without access and nearby parking to the trail, the health and vitality of thousands in our community will be affected.

Despite the massive congestion caused by the 91 freeway, our community members and hiking and cycling groups have a rare natural resource in the Skyline Hiking Trail that should be protected. We implore you to reject the applications and support our goals of healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and the conservation of and access to our forests and trails.

Thank you,
David Armenta
Corona, Ca

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 66
David (James) Armenta
Corona, CA
[email protected]
Response to Letter 66
Response to Comments 66-1 through 66-3. Please see Responses to Comments 15-1 through 15-6(Letter 15, David Wright).

With regard to the replacement parking for Skyline Trail, please see Response to Comment 12-1 (Letter 12, DeAnne Murdock).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-286
1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 11:15 AM
To: David Crook
Subject: FW: Skyline Heights Project - Questions on DEIR Fyi.

From: Dennis Ralls
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 11:12 AM
To: Terri Manuel
Cc: Nelson Nelson; Vikki Li; Albert Espinoza; Joanne Coletta Subject: RE: Skyline Heights Project - Questions on DEIR Terri,

Please see our responses highlighted below.

Thank you,

DENNIS RALLS

PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM MANAGER
CITY OF CORONA | PUBLIC WORKS | TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
400 S. Vicentia Avenue | Corona, CA 92882‐2187
Direct: (951) 279‐3664 | Hours: M‐F 8am‐5pm

Please drive safely!

From: Nelson Nelson
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 7:02 AM
To: Dennis Ralls; Vikki Li; Albert Espinoza
Subject: FW: Skyline Heights Project - Questions on DEIR

Good morning,

While most of the questions below will be addressed by Joanne’s group, we should provide a response to the traffic related questions. Please review the two questions regarding traffic and provide a response to Terri with a Cc to Joanne and myself by the end of this week. If you need more time, please coordinate with Terri so she has time to compile everything into one response.

Thanks,
Nelson

From: Courtney Kasey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 6:36 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; [email protected]; Police Admin; [email protected]; Joanne Coletta; Nelson Nelson; Darrell Talbert; [email protected]:

Subject: Skyline Heights Project - Questions on DEIR

Hello –
2 I attended and spoke at the Planning meeting held Monday 4/11. Below is a list of my questions, although I’ll likely have more to send through before the early May deadline:

General Questions
Question: Throughout the document it provides mileage from the “project site” to schools, parks, fire/police buildings, freeway entrances. Are these based on the homes in Maybe Canyon or Skyline Dr? EIR should note, as the mileage would be different. Additionally, is it based on existing roadways, or after the expansion of the Foothill Parkway? Again, EIR should note that.

Question: Will the public be allowed to view/comment on an updated version of the DEIR before it’s submitted as final, based on the comments/feedback from the 4/11/16 city council meeting? Question: In all of the analysis done, are all projections based on solely this project, or are all of the new housing units on Main Street, Green River. Dos Lagos area and the proposed Golf Course off Serfas Club taken into account (# of students, traffic at the intersections, police and fire resources, etc…) RESPONSE: The analysis and projections of traffic were based on the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) which takes in all known information to model the projected demands of the Southern California’s transportation infrastructure. The SCAG RTP is detailed enough to be used by local transportation engineers to project the estimate demands on local roadways. The SCAG RTP’s projected 2035 traffic demand was used to determine the background traffic that would exist without the project to determine a baseline.

The project’s projected impact was then taken into account on top of this background demand to determine the ultimate demand on the infrastructure in 2035. The project analysis then used more current and localized traffic studies such as the Foothill Westerly Extension to estimate the near term traffic demands. All projects known at the time of these studies were incorporated into this project study. Each project is required by law to perform its own independent study in a similar manner to determine if that project will have a significant impact warranting mitigation. So if a project was not included in this project’s study, that project would still have to show that its impacts are not significant or that mitigation measures be taken to counteract that project's impacts.

Question: Why were all of the studies done during “low rainfall years”? I think the animals and vegetation that will be noted in a high or even average rainfall year would vary. Due to the amount of rain we’ve received just this season, I believe a new study is needed to compare and see if the findings are consistent.

Alternative 3
Question: in Alternative 3 – Reduced Density Alternative – while this would only allow for 45 single family homes as opposed to the 292 in the original project request – it says that under this alternative, all of the 270.9 acre project site would still be annexed, but only Phase III of that project would be developed. What it doesn’t note is what guarantee do the residents of Corona have that once all of the land is annexed, as noted in this alternative, would it not be built upon at a later date? That should be included in the final EIR.

Measure Bio‐2:

References the migratory and nesting birds. What I didn’t follow is that all clearing and other work will be avoided during the critical nesting period of 1/1‐9/1.

Question: How will this level of construction take place only 3 months a year? Would like the council to further explain this section of the document and plans.

Measure Bio‐3 on page 28 talks of the Burrowing Owl and that a pre‐construction burrowing owl clearance survey will be conducted no more than 30 days before earth disturbance.

Population/Housing/Employment
Question: Is the formula for Jobs/Housing Ratio on Page 448 based on total jobs vs. total homes? If so, that is insufficient and should not be used for this analysis, especially in the City of Corona that is not job rich in high 3 income/white collar jobs, which presumably the buyers of these million dollar homes will be employed as. Can an analysis be rerun, to look at ratios that match jobs (pay‐scale) with similarly priced housing availability? I would argue that we are not job rich in the types of jobs necessary to support the buyers of these homes, which means that the 300‐ 600 adults that will be moving in, will be joining me on my M‐F commute into OC/LA.

Question: Page 449 states that there a deficit of “above moderate” priced homes in Corona. That this accounts for 40% of total homes needed in Corona (on a scale of low income housing to above moderate housing). What is the average price of an “above moderate” priced home? The document states that this was determined by RHNA and approved by SCAG on 10/4/12. Where is that document? The residents of Corona should be able to fully understand this analysis, as it seems to be a large point in the DEIR as to why this project is under consideration.

Question: How are the grades on Foothill expected to be worse in the year 2035 if the project expands than in 2020 (F vs. a B). What happens in 2035 that would cause such a radical change? ANSWER: Table 4.M‐9 of the DEIR lists the existing Level of Service (LOS) compared to the LOS at 2035 without the project, with the project, and with the project and its mitigation measures included. In 2035, the LOS of Foothill at Elysia and at Trudy is expected to reach a level of F without the project and is expected to worsen with the project. Traffic signals can dramatically increase the efficiency and reduce delay. Traffic signals are part of the mitigation measures for these two failing intersections and are how the LOS will be increased to acceptable Levels.

Statement: The DEIR should also be updated to include an evaluation of the freeway entrances/exits, as no amount of mitigation proposed will soften the effects of having an additional 300‐600 cars going into OC/LA every day…from this neighborhood alone!
Statement: Reading on page 521 that our Policy 6.1.6 is for our roadways to have a grade of D or better is a very low standard. If our students aimed for that as a minimal level, we would consider that we had an epic failure of our educational system here.

Water Conservation
Questions: How will the additional landscaping – both for the homes and the surrounding community grounds, be reconciled with Corona’s water conservation plan? How will the removal of natural watersheds be mitigated to the benefit of the foothills and Corona residents? Neither of these concerns were detailed in the DEIR as far as I recall and needs to be addressed.

Statement: Corona is in a Stage 3 Water Conservation Alert. In 2015, the City asked its citizens to conserve a staggering

Rules for Annexation
Watching the footage of the Temescal Canyon “No Annexation” meetings, one of the council members told the audience that 2 rules applied when considering annexation:
1) Cannot financially impact existing residents
2) Any type of Annexation has to stand on its own
Question: Where in the DEIR is the financial support for this project. Other than the notes that no new schools/firehouses/police stations, nor personal will be needed, I did not see an assessment of revenue expected from taxes/fees/etc. vs. the expense of servicing this new community. On page 453 the document states that “no new jobs” 4 would directly result from this project. So the revenue from the building and taxes paid by the homeowners would be the only incoming revenue to the city – correct? Please update the final EIR to include.

Question: Where is the justification in the EIR that this new neighborhood can “stand on its own.” Statement: Our Jr. High Schools are currently impacted and cannot accommodate any new students, additional residents – with no additional fire/police personal, no new parks when we’re at an open space deficient of 161 acres (as noted on page 475)is not “standing on its own.”

Thank you for your time. I have several corrections that I believe are needed to be addressed in the final version of the EIR, based on what I have deemed inadequate or flawed. I will send in a separate e‐mail.

Sincerely –
Courtney Kasey

For more information on our business ethical standards and Corporate Responsibility policies please refer to WPP's website at http://www.wpp.com/WPP/About/ January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 67
Courtney Kasey
[email protected]
Response to Letter 67
Response to Comment 67-1. This comment is an e-mail exchange between City officials regarding the questions and comments made in this letter by Courtney Kasey, and indicates that City staff has prepared responses to the traffic questions and comments in the letter. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is required.

Response to Comment 67-2. This comment provides a general introduction regarding the comments raised in this letter. Responses to the comments contained in this letter are provided below in Responses to Comments 67-3 through 67-20.

Response to Comment 67-3. The distances identified from the project site to schools, parks, fire/police buildings, freeway entrances, etc., are as the crow flies, not along roads, and are measured from the closest point within the project site. This clarification has been added to the Draft EIR in Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR, of this Final EIR.

Response to Comment 67-4. The Final EIR includes: (1) an introduction; (2) written responses to comments received from responsible and trustee agencies, organizations, and members of the public during the 45-day Draft EIR public review period (including mailed and e-mailed comments and comments received at the two Planning and Housing Commission hearings held on April 11 and May 9, 2016); (3) corrections and additions to the Draft EIR; and (4) a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b), the City shall provide all public agencies who submitted comments on the Draft EIR with proposed written responses to those comments at least 10 days prior to certification of the EIR. Although not required by CEQA, the City will also post the Final EIR on the City’s website during this minimum 10-day review period so that members of the public may review the Final EIR before certification.

Also, the public will also be afforded the opportunity to comment on the project and Final EIR during the City Council hearing on EIR certification, which will be considered by the City Council in the decision making process regarding the project.

Please note that the April 11, 2016 City Council meeting referenced in the comment was actually the first of two Planning and Housing Commission hearings referenced in the response above.

Response to Comment 67-5. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15130, 15065, and 15355, the Draft EIR addresses not only the impacts of the project, but also the impacts of the project in combination with cumulative development. The cumulative analysis is provided for each environmental issue (Aesthetics, Land Use, Traffic, etc.) under a separate “Cumulative Impacts” subheading in each section in Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis, of the Draft EIR. The development assumptions used in each cumulative analysis are identified in each cumulative analysis, and as permitted under CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), are based on one or both of the following depending on the nature of the environmental issue:

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-291

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
(1) List Approach: A list of past, present, and probable future projects (e.g., cumulative or related projects) in the project vicinity produced by the City from its project status database. The list is provided as Table 3-1, Related Projects List, in Chapter 3, Basis for Cumulative Analysis, of the Draft EIR. The locations of these related projects are also mapped in Figure 3-1, Related Projects Map, in Chapter 3.
(2) Growth Projections Approach: A summary of growth projections contained in adopted General Plans, related planning documents, or prior environmental planning documents (e.g., City of Corona General Plan, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), etc).

Because the geographic scope of the cumulative analysis for each environmental issue is different (for example, the geographic extent for the cumulative air quality analysis is the entire South Coast Air Basin, whereas the geographic extent for the cumulative aesthetics analysis is limited to the viewshed surrounding the project site). The geographic scope of the cumulative analysis for each environmental issue is identified on pages 3-2 and 3-3 of the Draft EIR.

As indicated in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1, multiple related projects along Main Street, Green River, Dos Lagos, and Segras Club are included in the related projects list.

The cumulative demand for fire, police, parks, schools and libraries discussed on pages 4.L-23 through 4.L25 is not quantified and is not required to be quantified under CEQA. CEQA looks at the environmental impact of new public facilities on the environment and not on the social impact the project would have on existing services. The project does not warrant the construction of new facilities associated with police and fire departments, parks, library and schools. However, proponents of new development would be required to pay applicable City of Corona development impacts fees. These fees are collected by the City and used to construct anticipated public infrastructure to maintain acceptable levels of service and capacity to support development that will occur over time. In the case of public schools, school impact fees (SB 50) are also required to be paid with new development to fund the construction of educational facilities. The proponent for this project and future development within the annexation boundary will pay school impact fees directly to the Corona-Norco Unified School District. CNUSD is responsible for the operation of the schools within their district and is responsible for assessing the need of additional education facilities based on their student capacity. Therefore, as indicated on pages 4.L-23 through 4.L-25, cumulative public services impacts would be less than significant.

With regard to cumulative traffic impacts, as indicated in the City’s response to this question in, Comment 67-5, the analysis and projections of traffic were based on the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) which takes in all known information about past, present and reasonable foreseeable future development (e.g., related or cumulative projects) to model the projected demands of the Southern California’s transportation roadway infrastructure. The SCAG RTP is detailed enough to be used by local transportation engineers to project the estimated cumulative demands on local roadways. The SCAG RTP’s projected 2035 traffic demand was used to determine the existing and projected future background traffic that would exist without the project to determine a baseline, and thus incorporates cumulative development in the area. The project’s projected impact was then added to this background traffic to determine the ultimate demand on the roadway infrastructure in 2035, and as indicated on page 4.M-44, project traffic impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-292
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
prescribed mitigation measures.

Response to Comment 67-6. See Response to Comment 3-2 above. Updated focused botanical surveys were conducted during the 2016 survey season to supplement previous work and provide current data. The 2016 rainfall year was better than previous years’ surveys. Rainfall was more than any of the previous three years individually and should have allowed most species to bloom. Based on the 2013 focused surveys and 2016 general surveys, the project site does not currently support burrowing owl. Since the project site supports suitable habitat, a preconstruction survey will be conducted 30 days prior to ground disturbance in accordance with the MSHCP to ensure burrowing owls are not occupying the site at the time of construction (see Mitigation Measure BIO-MM12 in the Updated Biological Assessment and the RDEIR).

Response to Comment 67-7. The Draft EIR evaluated the impacts of a range of feasible alternatives to the project which could attain most of the basic objectives of the project while avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, along with the required No Project Alternative, in Chapter 5, Alternatives. As indicated in the comment, and on page 5-24 of the Draft EIR, one of the alternatives evaluated was Alternative 3, Phase III Only Alternative, where all of the 394.8-acre annexation area would be annexed to the City, but only Phase III of the project (e.g., 45 single-family residential units north of Maybey Canyon) would be developed. While the whole of the 394.8-acre annexation area would be annexed under this alternative: (1) the entire annexation area is located within the Cleveland National Forest (CNF) which has its own land use regulations which prohibit or severely limit the development potential of large portions of the annexation area; (2) four open space parcels within the annexation area (37.61 acres) are owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and not subject to future development (at least, not by private developers); (3) portions of the annexation area are currently designated and zoned as open space by the County and would continue to be designated and zoned as open space once annexed to the City; and (4) any future development in the annexation area beyond the project site would be subject to comprehensive CEQA review and mitigation of any significant impacts once such a development proposal is brought forth. Furthermore, the portions of the annexation area outside the 270.9-acre project site are not owned by the applicant, and the applicant has no power to issue a guarantee ensuring that development does not occur in those areas.

For all these reasons, a guarantee ensuring that development does not occur in the future in the balance of the annexation under Alternative 3 is neither possible nor warranted.

Response to Comment 67-8. The mitigation measure BIO-2 in the original Draft EIR was renumbered as BIO-MM11 in the recirculated Biological Resources section in the RDEIR and provides the following:

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM11. To prevent impacts to sensitive, migratory, and nesting birds (including raptors), clearing, or other work in native habitats, should be avoided during the critical nesting period of January 1 – September 1. If work cannot be avoided during this timeframe, a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within three (3) days prior to initiation of clearing and/or grading. If nesting birds are present, a nesting bird plan will be developed and implemented and include appropriate measures to mitigate potential impacts, including maintaining a buffer area until fledging has occurred. Active bird nests should be mapped utilizing a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) (getting as close as possible without disturbing the nest) and a buffer will be flagged around the nest (typically 300 feet for most species, 500-foot buffer for raptor nests), as determined appropriate by the biologist. Construction should not be permitted within the buffer area while the nest continues to be active (eggs, chicks, etc.). Once fledging has occurred no further avoidance is required.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-293

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
This mitigation measure requires that initial vegetation removal, often called clearing and grubbing, will either avoid removal during the nesting season or if vegetation removal will occur during the nesting season, then a nesting bird survey must be completed prior to removal in order to avoid disturbance to bird nesting behavior. If nesting birds are located during the pre-construction survey, the nest and a buffer around the nest are fenced until the juveniles have fledged or the nest is inactive. The avoidance area or buffer size is dependent upon the type of bird species nesting. Once vegetation is removed, nesting is no longer expected to occur since the nesting habitat has been removed and work may proceed. For portions of the site that cannot be cleared prior to the nesting season, a clearance nesting bird survey is required immediately prior to impact.

An additional mitigation measure (BIO-MM14) was added to prevent wildlife impacts during clearing and grubbing.

Mitigation Measure BIO-MM14. A qualified biologist shall monitor clearing and grubbing activities as they impact vegetation on the site. A qualified biologist shall inspect debris piles, pipes, burrows, vegetation, leaf litter piles, and other potential refugia for sensitive wildlife species prior to initiation of clearing, grubbing, grading, or any other project activity that may injure or kill sensitive wildlife species.

If wildlife is discovered, the qualified biologist shall move it out of harm’s way or allow it to move safely out of the work area prior to initiation of project activities.

Potential day roosts for pallid bat (e.g., caves, crevices, mines, hollow trees, buildings, etc.) shall be inspected by a qualified bat biologist prior to initial ground disturbance. If bats are roosting, a bat exclusion plan shall be prepared and submitted to CDFW for review prior to impacts. If a colony is discovered during the breeding season (March-October), the biologist shall determine appropriate avoidance measures, including, but not limited to sound walls, buffers, and project phasing/timing, to prevent disturbance to the colony until all young are weaned and capable of foraging independently.Response to Comment 67-9. The mitigation measure BIO-3 in the original Draft EIR concerning burrowing owl was renumbered as BIO-MM12 in the recirculated Biological Resources section in the RDEIR. Mitigation measure BIO-MM12 states that if burrowing owls are identified on site during the clearance survey the following actions will be taken as outlined in the MSHCP: If the site is within the Criteria Area, then at least 90 percent of the area with longterm conservation value will be included in the MSHCP Conservation Area until it is demonstrated that conservation goals for the burrowing owl are met. However, the project site is not in an MSHCP Criteria Area.

Therefore, the following measures will be taken:

1. If the site contains, or is part of an area supporting less than 35 acres of suitable habitat or the survey reveals that the site and the surrounding area supports fewer than 3 pairs of burrowing owls, then the on-site burrowing owls will be passively or actively relocated following accepted protocols. a. Occupied nests will be avoided during the nesting season (February 1-August 31) along with a buffer of 300 – 500 feet dependent on the level of disturbance surrounding the burrow. b. Burrow exclusion will be utilized outside of the nesting season by installing a one-way door in the burrow openings. After which, the burrow will be closed following verification the burrows are empty through site monitoring and scoping.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-294
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

2. If the site (including adjacent areas) supports three or more pairs of burrowing owls, supports greater than 35 acres of suitable habitat and is non-contiguous with MSHCP Conservation Area lands, at least 90 percent of the area with long-term conservation value and burrowing owl pairs will be conserved onsite.

Response to Comment 67-10. The Draft EIR evaluated the population, housing and employment impacts of the project, including jobs/housing balance, in Section 4.K., Population, Housing and Employment, and evaluated the traffic impacts of the project in Section 4.M, Transportation, with supporting information provided in Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis. As indicated on page 4.K-4, the existing jobs/housing ratio within the area of the City of Corona identified by SCAG is 1.60 (e.g., jobs-rich) and is based on the total number of available jobs versus the total number of existing households. As further indicated on page 4.K-4, SCAG considers a jobs/housing ratio of 1.25 as ideal. Thus, as indicated on page 4.K-9 the addition of the project’s 292 residential units to this jobs-rich area would help provide housing for residents and help make up for the high jobs/housing ratio within the City. Furthermore, as indicated on page 4.K-7, the project would: be within applicable local growth projections; support applicable housing policies of the City’s General Plan, SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan, and the housing allocation goals of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment; substantially help meet the housing demand of the growing local population; and result in less than significant population, housing and employment impacts. Furthermore, the SCAG demographic data does not measure jobs-housing balance by comparing different job pay scales to similarly priced housing, nor is it standard CEQA practice to provide such analysis in an EIR. Therefore, the analysis is sufficient as written, and no “rerun” of the analysis is required.

With regard to the commenter’s contentions that there is a link between the jobs/housing balance estimates identified in Section 4.K and the traffic analysis provided in Section 4.M, and that if the jobs/housing balance estimates were rerun as the commenter requests, there would be more project-related commuting out of the area and greater traffic impacts than identified in Section 4.M, this is incorrect. As indicated on pages 4.M-18 and 4.M-19 of the Draft EIR, the project trip distribution assumptions applied in the traffic analysis were not based in whole or in part of jobs/housing balance, but rather were based on consultations with City staff which considered: the project site’s proximity to major traffic carriers (i.e., SR 91 Freeway), expected localized traffic flow patterns based on adjacent street channelization and presence of traffic signals, and the recently completed Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension project; the traffic-carrying capacity and travel speed available on roadways serving the project site; existing intersection traffic volumes; and ingress/egress available at the site.

Response to Comment 67-11. The Draft EIR evaluated the population, housing and employment impacts of the project, housing needs for above moderate income groups in the City of Corona, in Section 4.K, Population, Housing and Employment. As indicated on page 4.K-5, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), 40% (308 units) of the City’s housing need is for above moderate income housing units. As indicated in Table 4.K-4 on page 4.K-5, the source data for this information is available on SCAG’s website at http://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/5thCyclePFinalRHNAplan.pdf. Hence, the requested document is available to anyone who has access to a computer and the internet. The 2012 RHNA with the applicable source data is also available for review at the local officers of SCAG.

With respect to the question of what is the average price of an “above moderate” priced home, this is a function of the average income in the City of Corona. Nonetheless, the specific market value or ultimate sales price of new homes, whether as part of the proposed project or otherwise, is not germane to the EIR or the City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-295

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
analysis of issues presented therein. As such, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 67-12: The Draft EIR evaluated the traffic impacts of the project in Section 4.M, Transportation, with supporting data provided in Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). As indicated on page 4.M-14, nine traffic scenarios or conditions were evaluated in the traffic analysis, including existing (baseline) without and with the project, year 2020 without and with the project, year 2035 without and with the project, and three miscellaneous scenarios with recommended improvements.. In referencing pages 513 and 515 of the Draft EIR, the commenter is referencing Table 4.M-8 (Year 2020 Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary) and Table 4.M-9 (Year 2035 Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary). Each of these tables has separate columns identifying traffic conditions for the given year without and with the project, with the “Without Project” columns assuming existing + future cumulative traffic for the given year, and the “With Project” columns assuming existing + future cumulative + project traffic for the given year. Both tables are pre-mitigation (e.g., before implementation of the proposed mitigation measures). The “future cumulative traffic” includes traffic the traffic associated with other housing projects (and other development) currently or projected to be built in the City by the given year.

The existing (baseline) conditions analysis assumes that the Foothill Parkway Extension Project is not yet completed, while the year 2020 and 2035 analyses assume that the Foothill Parkway Extension project is completed. Please see Response to Comment 10-2 (Letter 10, Nicole Krenzin) for further discussion of what “future cumulative traffic” includes.

Response to Comment 67-13: The traffic “grades” on Foothill are worse in 2035 than in 2020 because, while Foothill is assumed to carry both existing and project traffic during both analysis scenario years, Foothill will carry more traffic from cumulative development in 2035 than in 2020 (e.g., the 2035 analysis includes cumulative growth projected to occur in the City and its environs through 2035, while the 2020 analysis includes cumulative growth only through 2020).

Response to Comment 67-14: Please see Response to Comment 77-6 (Letter 77, Wilson Tsing).

Response to Comment 67-15: The comment that the City’s level of service D standard for arterial streets is a very low standard is noted, but does not raise a substantive comment on the discussion in the Draft EIR.

The level of service D threshold is adopted by the City and is the acceptable level of service for arterial streets. Therefore, the discussion in the Draft EIR is consistent with the City’s adopted standard.

Response to Comment 67-16: The Draft EIR evaluated the water supply impacts of the project, including water conservation, in Section 4.N, Utilities, with supporting dating provided in Appendix L, Water Study, Recycled Water Study, and Sewer Study. As indicated on page 4.N-7, the project would utilize reclaimed water for HOA landscape irrigation via development of an on-site network of reclaimed water pipelines that connect to the City’s reclaimed water line proposed in Foothill Parkway as part of the Foothill Parkway Extension Project, which has recently been completed in late 2016. As indicated on page 4.N-39, the proposed landscape design would incorporate water conservation measures including water-conserving planting, efficient irrigation systems, and water-conserving fixtures in accordance with Chapter 13.26, Water Conservation Plan, of the City of Corona Municipal Code (CMC). As indicated on page 4.N-49, the project would meet or exceed the water efficiency requirements set forth by Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), and would be required to reduce water consumption by 15 percent in accordance with CMC Chapter 13.26. As indicated on page 4.N-61, the project would result in less than significant water City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-296
January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
supply impacts with implementation of the prescribed mitigation requiring payment of the City’s CDWP water connection fees.

With regard to project impacts to watersheds, the Draft EIR evaluated the hydrology (drainage) and groundwater impacts of the project in Section 4.H, Hydrology and Water Quality, with supporting data provided in Appendix H, Preliminary Drainage Report and Water Quality Management Plan. As indicated on page 4.H-27, approximately 96 acres of the 270.9-acre project site would remain in natural open space, as would the 123.9 acres outside the project site but within the greater annexation area. As indicated on page

4.H-26, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. As indicated on page 4.H-27, the project would add only approximately 40 acres of impervious area in the form of streets, rooftops, driveways and sidewalks which would represent approximately 15 percent of the project site or about four percent of the total tributary area. As indicated on page 4.H-27, the project would be designed to maintain the existing drainage patterns of the site and area.

Also, although the project’s conveyance systems for storm water runoff would be somewhat different than the pre-project condition, storm water runoff within the development would still be directed to the same streams/channels, off-site detention basins, and other unlined storm water conveyance features, and thus would be still be absorbed into the ground (albeit in different locations) as occurs naturally in the preproject condition.

Response to Comment 67-17: Please see Responses to Comments 9-8 (Letter 9, Petition-Moratorium, iPetitions.com, Sangita Patel) and 18-2 (Letter 18, Kyle Ericson). Please also see Response to Comment 67- 16 above.

Response to Comment 67-18: Below is the link to the annexation staff report that was prepared for the Planning and Housing Commission. The annexation staff report includes the Plan of Services and the Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA). The EIR is responsible for evaluating the physical changes to the environment and not the fiscal impact of a project. However, the fiscal impacts are required to be analyzed in the annexation request, which was done in the annexation staff report. The fiscal analysis was also included as an exhibit in the staff report in addition to the Plan of Services.
http://www.discovercorona.com/getattachment/91b68aff‐4caf‐4c8d‐8004‐890bcfad91e0/file.aspx The FIA identifies the fiscal impacts of the project to the City. The FIA shows the ongoing expenses and revenues to the City’s General Fund following annexation and buildout. Jobs would be created at the City to provide ongoing services. Construction jobs and related employment would result from construction. The FIA shows that the project is fiscally positive to the City’s general fund (i.e., projected revenues exceed costs) and to the County post annexation. In addition, the project is subject to development impact fees associated with schools/fire and police services among others as per City requirements.

Response to Comment 67-19: The FIA shows that the project would stand on its own from a fiscal impact to City’s general fund. It should also be noted that Deputy Fire Chief Mike Samuels at the public hearing stated that no additional staffing was needed because the project would be served by the City’s existing fire stations. However, future police personal are added in FIA costs associated with the annexation. See Response to Comment 67-18 above for additional discussion.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-297

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Response to Comment 67-20. This comment provides a general conclusion regarding the comments raised in this letter. Responses to the comments contained in this letter are provided above in Responses to Comments 67-1 through 67-19.

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-298
1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 9:55 AM
To: Courtney Kasey
Cc: Jason Scott; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Darrell Talbert; Aaron Hake; David Crook; Mike Byer ([email protected]) Subject: RE: Skyline Heights Project - Questions on DEIR Courtney,
The Community Development Department has received your comments on the Skyline Heights projects. Your comments will be included in the record and the Final EIR will include responses to the comments from the public. After the close of the public comment period on May 2, 2016 on the Draft EIR, the city will begin the preparation of the Final EIR, which will be the next published document on the EIR. The responses in the Final EIR will be made available to the public 10 days before consideration by the City Council. To confirm, the continued meeting on May 9, 2016 is the Planning and Housing Commission, not the City Council.

Below is the link to the annexation staff report that was prepared for the Planning and Housing Commission. The annexation staff report includes the Plan of Services and the fiscal information. The EIR is responsible for evaluating the physical changes to the environment and not the fiscal impact of a project. However, the fiscal impacts are required to be analyzed in the annexation request, which was done in the annexation staff report. The fiscal analysis was also included as an exhibit in the staff report in addition to the Plan of Services. http://www.discovercorona.com/getattachment/91b68aff‐4caf‐4c8d‐8004‐890bcfad91e0/file.aspx If you have additional comments on the Draft EIR before the close of the comment period on May 2, 2016, please send them to my attention at [email protected].

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Joanne Coletta
Community Development Director
From: Courtney Kasey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 6:36 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; [email protected]; Police Admin; [email protected]; Joanne Coletta; Nelson Nelson; Darrell Talbert; [email protected]:

Subject: Skyline Heights Project - Questions on DEIR
Hello –
I attended and spoke at the Planning meeting held Monday 4/11. Below is a list of my questions, although I’ll likely have more to send through before the early May deadline:

General Questions
Question: Throughout the document it provides mileage from the “project site” to schools, parks, fire/police buildings, freeway entrances. Are these based on the homes in Maybe Canyon or Skyline Dr? EIR should note, as the mileage 2 would be different. Additionally, is it based on existing roadways, or after the expansion of the Foothill Parkway? Again, EIR should note that.

Question: Will the public be allowed to view/comment on an updated version of the DEIR before it’s submitted as final, based on the comments/feedback from the 4/11/16 city council meeting? Question: In all of the analysis done, are all projections based on solely this project, or are all of the new housing units on Main Street, Green River. Dos Lagos area and the proposed Golf Course off Serfas Club taken into account (# of students, traffic at the intersections, police and fire resources, etc…) Question: Why were all of the studies done during “low rainfall years”? I think the animals and vegetation that will be noted in a high or even average rainfall year would vary. Due to the amount of rain we’ve received just this season, I believe a new study is needed to compare and see if the findings are consistent.

Measure Bio‐2:

References the migratory and nesting birds. What I didn’t follow is that all clearing and other work will be avoided during the critical nesting period of 1/1‐9/1.

Question: How will this level of construction take place only 3 months a year? Would like the council to further explain this section of the document and plans.

Measure Bio‐3 on page 28 talks of the Burrowing Owl and that a pre‐construction burrowing owl clearance survey will be conducted no more than 30 days before earth disturbance.

Traffic
Question: On page 513 & 515 In the years 2020 and 2035, were these conditions/traffic ratings “Existing with Project, with mitigation” are they based on this project alone or do they account for all of the other housing projects currently being built and/or projected to be built? Do they assume the open operation of the Foothill expansion? Question: How are the grades on Foothill expected to be worse in the year 2035 if the project expands than in 2020 (F vs. a B). What happens in 2035 that would cause such a radical change? 3 Statement: The DEIR should also be updated to include an evaluation of the freeway entrances/exits, as no amount of mitigation proposed will soften the effects of having an additional 300‐600 cars going into OC/LA every day…from this neighborhood alone!
Statement: Reading on page 521 that our Policy 6.1.6 is for our roadways to have a grade of D or better is a very low standard. If our students aimed for that as a minimal level, we would consider that we had an epic failure of our educational system here.

Statement: Corona is in a Stage 3 Water Conservation Alert. In 2015, the City asked its citizens to conserve a staggering

2.3B gallons of water and incentivized residents who replaced lawns with drought‐tolerant vegetation. The City wants to create homes for 1,028 new residents while asking it's existing population to cutback it's water consumption by 28%? The city wants residents to install drought‐tolerant vegetation while bulldozing 270 acres of native vegetation and natural watershed?
Rules for Annexation
Watching the footage of the Temescal Canyon “No Annexation” meetings, one of the council members told the audience that 2 rules applied when considering annexation:
1) Cannot financially impact existing residents
2) Any type of Annexation has to stand on its own
Question: Where in the DEIR is the financial support for this project. Other than the notes that no new schools/firehouses/police stations, nor personal will be needed, I did not see an assessment of revenue expected from taxes/fees/etc. vs. the expense of servicing this new community. On page 453 the document states that “no new jobs” would directly result from this project. So the revenue from the building and taxes paid by the homeowners would be the only incoming revenue to the city – correct? Please update the final EIR to include.

Statement: Stating that this new community won’t financially impact existing residents is also a stretch in my opinion – work hours lost due to increased traffic, increased gas for our cars as we idle on the freeway… Question: Where is the justification in the EIR that this new neighborhood can “stand on its own.” Statement: Our Jr. High Schools are currently impacted and cannot accommodate any new students, additional residents – with no additional fire/police personal, no new parks when we’re at an open space deficient of 161 acres (as noted on page 475)is not “standing on its own.”
Thank you for your time. I have several corrections that I believe are needed to be addressed in the final version of the EIR, based on what I have deemed inadequate or flawed. I will send in a separate e‐mail.

Sincerely –
Courtney Kasey
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this 4 message that do not relate to the official business of Group M Worldwide LLC and/or other members of the GroupM group of companies shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. GroupM is the global media investment management arm of WPP.

For more information on our business ethical standards and Corporate Responsibility policies please refer to WPP's website at http://www.wpp.com/WPP/About/ January 2017 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comment Letter 68
Courtney Kasey
[email protected]
Response to Letter 68
Response to Comment 68-1. This comment is a response from the City to the commenter explaining the remainder of the EIR process, including a link to the staff report prepared by City staff for the City’s Planning and Housing Commission, and explaining that the Plan for Services and fiscal information for the annexation is not required to be included in the EIR but is included in the staff report. However, as this comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comments 68-2 through 68-20. Please see Responses to Comments 67-2 through 67-20 (Letter 67, Courtney Kasey).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-303
1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 8:53 AM
To: Courtney Kasey
Subject: RE: Skyline Heights Project - Questions on DEIR Courtney,
The developer is responsible for paying all application fees associated with the project. The city circulated a Request For Proposal (RFP) and invited consultants to submit proposals to prepare the EIR for this project. The RFP was a competitive process and the city chose PCR Services to prepare the document. The city, not the developer, has the service contract with PCR Services to prepare the EIR. The developer however is responsible for funding the EIR because it is an application associated with their project. The developer has paid that money to the city in addition to all other fees associated with the processing of their applications.

The technical studies included in the EIR were done by consultants hired by the developer. The city and the EIR consultant do a peer review of all the technical studies prior to the city accepting the studies and including them in the EIR.

The developer is responsible for paying all building permits and development impact mitigation fees associated with their project. These fees are paid prior to the construction of the homes.

I also received your second email and your comments and the city’s responses will be included in the Final EIR.

Thank you.

Joanne Coletta
Community Development Director
From: Courtney Kasey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 10:26 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; [email protected]; Police Admin; [email protected]; Joanne Coletta; Nelson Nelson; Darrell Talbert; [email protected]:

Subject: RE: Skyline Heights Project - Questions on DEIR Hello –
A few other questions, that I would like to understand regarding this project:
‐ Can you clarify if Richland conducted/paid for/organized all of the 3rd parties that went into the DEIR analysis or did the city pay for that and contract the 3rd parties who did the analysis? ‐ Is the developer paying the fee per permit, per home, or will the home buyers be paying for that? ~ Courtney Kasey
From: Courtney Kasey
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 6:36 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 2 '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Darrell Talbert' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]:' <[email protected]:> Subject: Skyline Heights Project ‐ Questions on DEIR
Hello –
I attended and spoke at the Planning meeting held Monday 4/11. Below is a list of my questions, although I’ll likely have more to send through before the early May deadline:

Question: Will the public be allowed to view/comment on an updated version of the DEIR before it’s submitted as final, based on the comments/feedback from the 4/11/16 city council meeting? Question: In all of the analysis done, are all projections based on solely this project, or are all of the new housing units on Main Street, Green River. Dos Lagos area and the proposed Golf Course off Serfas Club taken into account (# of students, traffic at the intersections, police and fire resources, etc…) Question: Why were all of the studies done during “low rainfall years”? I think the animals and vegetation that will be noted in a high or even average rainfall year would vary. Due to the amount of rain we’ve received just this season, I believe a new study is needed to compare and see if the findings are consistent.

Measure Bio‐2:

References the migratory and nesting birds. What I didn’t follow is that all clearing and other work will be avoided during the critical nesting period of 1/1‐9/1.

Question: How will this level of construction take place only 3 months a year? Would like the council to further explain this section of the document and plans.

Measure Bio‐3 on page 28 talks of the Burrowing Owl and that a pre‐construction burrowing owl clearance survey will be conducted no more than 30 days before earth disturbance.

Question: What are the plans in place should a burrowing owl be found in that study. The land has been sold, rezoned, and everything is in place to start demolishing the land. Where is the contingency plan for finding an owl? Population/Housing/Employment
Question: Is the formula for Jobs/Housing Ratio on Page 448 based on total jobs vs. total homes? If so, that is insufficient and should not be used for this analysis, especially in the City of Corona that is not job rich in high income/white collar jobs, which presumably the buyers of these million dollar homes will be employed as. Can an analysis be rerun, to look at ratios that match jobs (pay‐scale) with similarly priced housing availability? I would argue that we are not job rich in the types of jobs necessary to support the buyers of these homes, which means that the 300‐ 600 adults that will be moving in, will be joining me on my M‐F commute into OC/LA. 3 Question: Page 449 states that there a deficit of “above moderate” priced homes in Corona. That this accounts for 40% of total homes needed in Corona (on a scale of low income housing to above moderate housing). What is the average price of an “above moderate” priced home? The document states that this was determined by RHNA and approved by SCAG on 10/4/12. Where is that document? The residents of Corona should be able to fully understand this analysis, as it seems to be a large point in the DEIR as to why this project is under consideration.

Traffic
Question: On page 513 & 515 In the years 2020 and 2035, were these conditions/traffic ratings “Existing with Project, with mitigation” are they based on this project alone or do they account for all of the other housing projects currently being built and/or projected to be built? Do they assume the open operation of the Foothill expansion? Question: How are the grades on Foothill expected to be worse in the year 2035 if the project expands than in 2020 (F vs. a B). What happens in 2035 that would cause such a radical change? Statement: The DEIR should also be updated to include an evaluation of the freeway entrances/exits, as no amount of mitigation proposed will soften the effects of having an additional 300‐600 cars going into OC/LA every day…from this neighborhood alone!
Statement: Reading on page 521 that our Policy 6.1.6 is for our roadways to have a grade of D or better is a very low standard. If our students aimed for that as a minimal level, we would consider that we had an epic failure of our educational system here.

Statement: Corona is in a Stage 3 Water Conservation Alert. In 2015, the City asked its citizens to conserve a staggering

Statement: Stating that this new community won’t financially impact existing residents is also a stretch in my opinion – work hours lost due to increased traffic, increased gas for our cars as we idle on the freeway… Question: Where is the justification in the EIR that this new neighborhood can “stand on its own.” Statement: Our Jr. High Schools are currently impacted and cannot accommodate any new students, additional residents – with no additional fire/police personal, no new parks when we’re at an open space deficient of 161 acres (as noted on page 475)is not “standing on its own.”
4 Thank you for your time. I have several corrections that I believe are needed to be addressed in the final version of the EIR, based on what I have deemed inadequate or flawed. I will send in a separate e‐mail.

Sincerely –
Courtney Kasey
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Group M Worldwide LLC and/or other members of the GroupM group of companies shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. GroupM is the global media investment management arm of WPP.

For more information on our business ethical standards and Corporate Responsibility policies please refer to WPP's website at http://www.wpp.com/WPP/About/

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS January 2017
Comment Letter 69
Courtney Kasey
[email protected]
Response to Letter 69
Response to Comment 69-1. This comment is a response from the City to Comment 69-2 explaining who conducted, paid for, and organized the EIR and associated technical studies. The City’s response is correct, except that PCR Services Corporation is now ESA PCR.

Response to Comment 69-2. The developer is responsible for paying all application fees associated with the project. The City circulated a Request For Proposal (RFP) and invited consultants to submit proposals to prepare the EIR for this project. The RFP was a competitive process and the City chose ESA PCR to prepare the document. The City, not the developer, has the service contract with ESA PCR to prepare the EIR. The developer however is responsible for funding the EIR because it is an application associated with their project. The developer has paid that money to the City in addition to all other fees associated with the processing of their applications.

The technical studies included in the EIR were done by consultants hired by the developer. The City and the EIR consultant did a peer review of all the technical studies prior to the City accepting the studies and including them in the EIR.

The developer is responsible for paying all building permits and development impact mitigation fees associated with their project. These fees are paid prior to the construction of the homes.

Response to Comments 69-3 through 69-21. Please see Responses to Comments 67-3 through 67-21 (Letter 67, Courtney Kasey).

City of Corona Skyline Heights Project
ESA PCR/SCH No. 2014021003 2-308
1 David Crook
From: Joanne Coletta <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 8:55 AM
To: David Crook; Mike Byer ([email protected]) Subject: FW: Skyline Heights Project - Comments/Concerns regarding the DEIR Attachments: US Fish and Game Species analysis.pdf; Wildlife1.jpg; wildlife2.jpg; wildlife3.jpg; wildlife4.jpg; wildlife5.jpg; wildlife6.jpg
From: Courtney Kasey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 11:21 PM
To: Jason Scott; Dick Haley; Randy Fox; Eugene Montanez; Karen Spiegel; Aaron Hake; [email protected]; Police Admin; [email protected]; Joanne Coletta; Nelson Nelson; Darrell Talbert Subject: Skyline Heights Project - Comments/Concerns regarding the DEIR Hello –
As promised at the end of my questions e‐mail sent 4/12, the following summarizes, and then goes into detail, where I believe the DEIR is flawed or needs to be amended.

Starting with the summary, this was the take away I had from the 100+ people who attending the Planning Commission Meeting on 4/11 and the 40+ speakers, including myself and my son. ‐ Traffic, traffic, traffic
o Our current infrastructure will not support the amount of building going on in Corona. Many of us spend hours on the freeway and sometimes an hour just to GET ON the freeway. o While some road projects are in the works, we are not confident that this will alleviate the situation or will we just be in the same position we are now once the new residents are here. ‐ Mitigation
o There is insufficient mitigation throughout the document – from lack of open space ratios, to traffic infrastructure, to loss of forest and views. Paying a fee/fine will not benefit the residents of my city. ‐ Impact to Wildlife
o There are over 40 endangered species in the area proposed for development. One of the residents showed a photo slide show of countless animals that never even made the EIR, which undermines the validity and thoroughness of the research conducted.
‐ Impact to the Trail System
o While 2 main hiking trails will not be impacted (Tin Mine and Hagador Canyon) the rest most certainly will.

From our views to the impact on the animal life and vegetation, all of this is of great concern. Again, no amount of mitigation will solve for these concerns.
‐ Existing Resources
o No new police/fire/schools – when we’re currently impacted at the Jr. High Level, have issues with our emergency services getting to where the need to go – especially during rush hour. Do you know that on 4/10 there was an accident on the 91 in Corona at 5am. 911 was immediately called and it was 6:30am before services could reach the accident due to traffic (they couldn’t even get on the freeway). ‐ Fire
o This will be the first time Corona will have a VHFHSZ in our city and with no additional firefighting resources, and the potential destruction that could result from that lack of support – to not only the homes, but the Cleveland National Forest, is a huge concern.
‐ Water Conservation
2 o We are in a Stage 3 Water Conservation Alert. To remove natural vegetation and watersheds, for manicured lawns and general water usage, makes no sense.

Specifically, here are my issues/concerns with the 662 page DEIR where I believe data is lacking, questionable or flat out false and should be amended:

Traffic/Transportation

Page 510 ends

Corona City CouncilJuly 1, 2026

Corona City Council
July 1, 2026